Code inspection
Locked
123456
123456
 
|
Fixed memory issues with increasing heap size and forcing G1GC.
Do we need all these plugins loaded for inspections? I've found a 'disable plugin' option in TC Inspections build configuration, but it is unclear how to disable plugin correctly. Can someone take over this? > 46 plugins initialized in 1031 ms > 2018-12-13 10:55:24,875 [ 1342] INFO - llij.ide.plugins.PluginManager - > Loaded bundled plugins: Android Support (10.2.3), Ant Support (1.0), CSS > Support (172.4574.11), Database Tools and SQL (172.4574.11), Eclipse > Integration (3.0), FreeMarker support (1.0), GWT Support (1.0), Gradle > (172.4574.11), Groovy (9.0), Guice (8.0), HTML Tools (2.0), Hibernate > Support (1.0), I18n for Java (172.4574.11), IDEA CORE (172.4574.11), > IntelliLang (8.0), JBoss Seam Support (1.0), JUnit (1.0), Java EE: Bean > Validation Support (1.1), Java EE: Contexts and Dependency Injection (1.1), > Java EE: EJB, JPA, Servlets (1.0), Java EE: Java Server Faces (2.2.X.), > Java EE: Web Services (JAX-WS) (1.9), Java Server Pages (JSP) Integration > (1.0), JavaScript Support (1.0), Kotlin (1.1.4-release-IJ2017.2-3), Maven > Integration (172.4574.11), Persistence Frameworks Support (1.0), Plugin > DevKit (1.0), Properties Support (172.4574.11), QuirksMode (172.4574.11), > Spring AOP/@AspectJ (1.0), Spring Batch (1.0), Spring Data (1.0), Spring > Integration Patterns (1.0), Spring Security (1.0), Spring Support (1.0), > Spring Web Flow (1.0), Spring Web Services (1.0), Struts 1.x (2.0), Struts > 2 (1.0), TestNG-J (8.0), UI Designer (172.4574.11), Velocity support (1.0), > W3C Validators (2.0), WebLogic Integration (1.0), XPathView + XSLT Support > (4) Kotlin plugins fails to start, let's disable it. > > 2018-12-13 10:55:27,623 [ 4090] INFO - il.indexing.FileBasedIndexImpl - Rebuild requested for index org.jetbrains.kotlin.idea.versions.KotlinJvmMetadataVersionIndex > java.lang.Throwable > at com.intellij.util.indexing.FileBasedIndex.requestRebuild(FileBasedIndex.java:68) > at org.jetbrains.kotlin.idea.versions.KotlinUpdatePluginComponent.initComponent(KotlinUpdatePluginComponent.kt:54) > at com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl$ComponentConfigComponentAdapter.getComponentInstance(ComponentManagerImpl.java:492) > at com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl.createComponents(ComponentManagerImpl.java:118) > at com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.a(ApplicationImpl.java:462) > at com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.createComponents(ApplicationImpl.java:466) > at com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl.init(ComponentManagerImpl.java:102) > at com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.load(ApplicationImpl.java:421) > at com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.load(ApplicationImpl.java:407) > at com.intellij.idea.IdeaApplication.run(IdeaApplication.java:203) On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 1:45 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]> wrote: > Sure, let's apply. I hope all TC agents may handle 4G heap. > > чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 12:54, Andrey Mashenkov <[hidden email] > >: > > > Guys, > > > > I've just creates a copy of Inspections TC build task with GC logs turned > > on to check if there is any issues > > and found Inspections task spent too much time in STW due to long Full GC > > pauses. > > > > I've tried to increase Xmx up to 4Gb and use G1GC got 2+ times better > > execution time down to ~15 min (~17 for 2G heap). > > Increasing heap size only is not very helpful as it just postpone Full GC > > issues, but changing GC to G1GC gives noticeable result. > > > > Let's apply this optimization. > > Thoughts? > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 12:43 PM Vyacheslav Daradur <[hidden email]> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi, Maxim, Nikolay, I have the following questions regarding > inspections: > > > > > > Should 'gnite_inspections_teamcity.xml' been imported into IDEA, since > > > 'ignite_inspections.xml' has been removed in actual master? > > > > > > Also, I've faced mismatching: if I use > > > '@SuppressWarnings("ErrorNotRethrown")' in code, then this will be > > > marked on TC as "Redundant suppression". If I removed this suppression > > > in "main" code base (not in tests) then it's fine and IDE does not > > > mark the code by inspection. But, if I use > > > 'GridTestUtils#assertThrows' in 'tests' code base, then IDE requires > > > to suppress the inspection, if I have done it then TC marks this as > > > "Redundant suppression". > > > > > > What should I do in this case? > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 10:26 PM Andrey Mashenkov > > > <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > Have someone tried to investigate the issue related to Inspection TC > > task > > > > execution time variation (from 0.5 up to 1,5 hours)? > > > > Can we enable GC logs for this task or may be even get CPU, Disk, > > Network > > > > metrics? > > > > Can someone check if there are unnecessary Idea plugins starts that > can > > > be > > > > safely disabled? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:52 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > I'm totally with you in this decision, let's move the file. > > > > > > > > > > вт, 27 нояб. 2018 г. в 16:24, Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email] > >: > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > > > > > > > I propose to make inspection configuration default on the project > > > > > > level. I've created a new issue [1] for it. It can be easily done > > and > > > > > > recommend by IntelliJ documentation [2]. > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vyacheslav, > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you share an example of your warnings? > > > > > > Currently, we have different inspection configurations: > > > > > > - ignite_inspections.xml - to import inspections as default and > use > > > it > > > > > > daily. > > > > > > - ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml - config to run it on TC. Only > > > fixed > > > > > > rules in the project code are enabled. Each of these rules are > > marked > > > > > > with ERROR level. > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10422 > > > > > > [2] https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/code-inspection.html > > > > > > On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 at 13:58, Nikolay Izhikov < > [hidden email] > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Vyacheslav. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, we have. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maxim Muzafarov, can you fix it, please? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г., 13:10 Vyacheslav Daradur > > [hidden email] > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guys, why we have 2 different inspection files in the repo? > > > > > > > > idea\ignite_inspections.xml > > > > > > > > idea\ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AFAIK TeamCity is able to use the same inspection file with > > IDE. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've imported 'idea\ignite_inspections.xml' in the IDE, but > now > > > see > > > > > > > > inspection warnings for my PR on TC because of different > rules. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 6:06 PM Maxim Muzafarov < > > > [hidden email]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yakov, Dmitry, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which example of unsuccessful suite execution do we need? > > > > > > > > > Does the current fail [1] in the master branch enough to > > > configure > > > > > > > > > notifications by TC.Bot? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please consider adding more checks > > > > > > > > > > - line endings. I think we should only have \n > > > > > > > > > > - ensure blank line at the end of file > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me that `line endings` is easy to add, but for > > the > > > > > `blank > > > > > > > > > line at the end` we need as special regexp. Can we focus on > > > > > built-in > > > > > > > > > IntelliJ inspections at first and fix others special > further? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 at 17:55, Maxim Muzafarov < > > > [hidden email]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since the inspection rules are included in RunAll a few > > > members > > > > > of > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > community mentioned a wide distributed execution time on > TC > > > > > agents: > > > > > > > > > > - 1h:27m:38s publicagent17_9094 > > > > > > > > > > - 38m:04s publicagent17_9094 > > > > > > > > > > - 33m:29s publicagent17_9094 > > > > > > > > > > - 17m:13s publicagent17_9094 > > > > > > > > > > It seems that we should configure the resources > > distribution > > > > > > across TC > > > > > > > > > > containers. Can anyone take a look at it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've also prepared the short list of rules to work on: > > > > > > > > > > + Inconsistent line separators (6 matches) > > > > > > > > > > + Problematic whitespace (4 matches) > > > > > > > > > > + expression.equals("literal")' rather than > > > > > > > > > > '"literal".equals(expression) (53 matches) > > > > > > > > > > + Unnecessary 'null' check before 'instanceof' expression > > or > > > call > > > > > > (42 > > > > > > > > matches) > > > > > > > > > > + Redundant 'if' statement (69 matches) > > > > > > > > > > + Redundant interface declaration (28 matches) > > > > > > > > > > + Double negation (0 matches) > > > > > > > > > > + Unnecessary code block (472 matches) > > > > > > > > > > + Line is longer than allowed by code style (2614 > matches) > > > (Is it > > > > > > > > > > possible to implement?) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 23:43, Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > > > > [hidden email]> > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Maxim, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you for your efforts to make this happen. Keep > the > > > pace! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please provide an example of how Inspections > > can > > > > > fail, > > > > > > so > > > > > > > > I or > > > > > > > > > > > another contributor could implement support of these > > > failures > > > > > > > > validation in > > > > > > > > > > > the Tc Bot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 26 окт. 2018 г. в 18:27, Yakov Zhdanov < > > > > > [hidden email] > > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maxim, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for response, let's do it the way you > suggested. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please consider adding more checks > > > > > > > > > > > > - line endings. I think we should only have \n > > > > > > > > > > > > - ensure blank line in the end of file > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All these are code reviews issues I pointed out many > > > times > > > > > when > > > > > > > > reviewing > > > > > > > > > > > > conributions. It would be cool if we have TC build > > > failing if > > > > > > > > there is any. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --Yakov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Best regards, > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > -- Best regards, Andrey V. Mashenkov |
|
|
Maxim M, do you know if we can disable inspections by wildcard? E.g.
Android* ? чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 14:59, Andrey Mashenkov <[hidden email]>: > Fixed memory issues with increasing heap size and forcing G1GC. > > Do we need all these plugins loaded for inspections? > I've found a 'disable plugin' option in TC Inspections build configuration, > but it is unclear how to disable plugin correctly. > Can someone take over this? > > > 46 plugins initialized in 1031 ms > > 2018-12-13 10:55:24,875 [ 1342] INFO - llij.ide.plugins.PluginManager - > > Loaded bundled plugins: Android Support (10.2.3), Ant Support (1.0), CSS > > Support (172.4574.11), Database Tools and SQL (172.4574.11), Eclipse > > Integration (3.0), FreeMarker support (1.0), GWT Support (1.0), Gradle > > (172.4574.11), Groovy (9.0), Guice (8.0), HTML Tools (2.0), Hibernate > > Support (1.0), I18n for Java (172.4574.11), IDEA CORE (172.4574.11), > > IntelliLang (8.0), JBoss Seam Support (1.0), JUnit (1.0), Java EE: Bean > > Validation Support (1.1), Java EE: Contexts and Dependency Injection > (1.1), > > Java EE: EJB, JPA, Servlets (1.0), Java EE: Java Server Faces (2.2.X.), > > Java EE: Web Services (JAX-WS) (1.9), Java Server Pages (JSP) Integration > > (1.0), JavaScript Support (1.0), Kotlin (1.1.4-release-IJ2017.2-3), Maven > > Integration (172.4574.11), Persistence Frameworks Support (1.0), Plugin > > DevKit (1.0), Properties Support (172.4574.11), QuirksMode (172.4574.11), > > Spring AOP/@AspectJ (1.0), Spring Batch (1.0), Spring Data (1.0), Spring > > Integration Patterns (1.0), Spring Security (1.0), Spring Support (1.0), > > Spring Web Flow (1.0), Spring Web Services (1.0), Struts 1.x (2.0), > Struts > > 2 (1.0), TestNG-J (8.0), UI Designer (172.4574.11), Velocity support > (1.0), > > W3C Validators (2.0), WebLogic Integration (1.0), XPathView + XSLT > Support > > (4) > > > Kotlin plugins fails to start, let's disable it. > > > > > 2018-12-13 10:55:27,623 [ 4090] INFO - > il.indexing.FileBasedIndexImpl - Rebuild requested for index > org.jetbrains.kotlin.idea.versions.KotlinJvmMetadataVersionIndex > > java.lang.Throwable > > at > com.intellij.util.indexing.FileBasedIndex.requestRebuild(FileBasedIndex.java:68) > > at > org.jetbrains.kotlin.idea.versions.KotlinUpdatePluginComponent.initComponent(KotlinUpdatePluginComponent.kt:54) > > at > com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl$ComponentConfigComponentAdapter.getComponentInstance(ComponentManagerImpl.java:492) > > at > com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl.createComponents(ComponentManagerImpl.java:118) > > at > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.a(ApplicationImpl.java:462) > > at > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.createComponents(ApplicationImpl.java:466) > > at > com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl.init(ComponentManagerImpl.java:102) > > at > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.load(ApplicationImpl.java:421) > > at > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.load(ApplicationImpl.java:407) > > at com.intellij.idea.IdeaApplication.run(IdeaApplication.java:203) > > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 1:45 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > Sure, let's apply. I hope all TC agents may handle 4G heap. > > > > чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 12:54, Andrey Mashenkov < > [hidden email] > > >: > > > > > Guys, > > > > > > I've just creates a copy of Inspections TC build task with GC logs > turned > > > on to check if there is any issues > > > and found Inspections task spent too much time in STW due to long Full > GC > > > pauses. > > > > > > I've tried to increase Xmx up to 4Gb and use G1GC got 2+ times better > > > execution time down to ~15 min (~17 for 2G heap). > > > Increasing heap size only is not very helpful as it just postpone Full > GC > > > issues, but changing GC to G1GC gives noticeable result. > > > > > > Let's apply this optimization. > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 12:43 PM Vyacheslav Daradur < > [hidden email]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi, Maxim, Nikolay, I have the following questions regarding > > inspections: > > > > > > > > Should 'gnite_inspections_teamcity.xml' been imported into IDEA, > since > > > > 'ignite_inspections.xml' has been removed in actual master? > > > > > > > > Also, I've faced mismatching: if I use > > > > '@SuppressWarnings("ErrorNotRethrown")' in code, then this will be > > > > marked on TC as "Redundant suppression". If I removed this > suppression > > > > in "main" code base (not in tests) then it's fine and IDE does not > > > > mark the code by inspection. But, if I use > > > > 'GridTestUtils#assertThrows' in 'tests' code base, then IDE requires > > > > to suppress the inspection, if I have done it then TC marks this as > > > > "Redundant suppression". > > > > > > > > What should I do in this case? > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 10:26 PM Andrey Mashenkov > > > > <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > Have someone tried to investigate the issue related to Inspection > TC > > > task > > > > > execution time variation (from 0.5 up to 1,5 hours)? > > > > > Can we enable GC logs for this task or may be even get CPU, Disk, > > > Network > > > > > metrics? > > > > > Can someone check if there are unnecessary Idea plugins starts that > > can > > > > be > > > > > safely disabled? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:52 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I'm totally with you in this decision, let's move the file. > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 27 нояб. 2018 г. в 16:24, Maxim Muzafarov < > [hidden email] > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I propose to make inspection configuration default on the > project > > > > > > > level. I've created a new issue [1] for it. It can be easily > done > > > and > > > > > > > recommend by IntelliJ documentation [2]. > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vyacheslav, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you share an example of your warnings? > > > > > > > Currently, we have different inspection configurations: > > > > > > > - ignite_inspections.xml - to import inspections as default and > > use > > > > it > > > > > > > daily. > > > > > > > - ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml - config to run it on TC. > Only > > > > fixed > > > > > > > rules in the project code are enabled. Each of these rules are > > > marked > > > > > > > with ERROR level. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10422 > > > > > > > [2] https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/code-inspection.html > > > > > > > On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 at 13:58, Nikolay Izhikov < > > [hidden email] > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Vyacheslav. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, we have. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maxim Muzafarov, can you fix it, please? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г., 13:10 Vyacheslav Daradur > > > [hidden email] > > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guys, why we have 2 different inspection files in the repo? > > > > > > > > > idea\ignite_inspections.xml > > > > > > > > > idea\ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AFAIK TeamCity is able to use the same inspection file with > > > IDE. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've imported 'idea\ignite_inspections.xml' in the IDE, but > > now > > > > see > > > > > > > > > inspection warnings for my PR on TC because of different > > rules. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 6:06 PM Maxim Muzafarov < > > > > [hidden email]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yakov, Dmitry, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which example of unsuccessful suite execution do we need? > > > > > > > > > > Does the current fail [1] in the master branch enough to > > > > configure > > > > > > > > > > notifications by TC.Bot? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please consider adding more checks > > > > > > > > > > > - line endings. I think we should only have \n > > > > > > > > > > > - ensure blank line at the end of file > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me that `line endings` is easy to add, but > for > > > the > > > > > > `blank > > > > > > > > > > line at the end` we need as special regexp. Can we focus > on > > > > > > built-in > > > > > > > > > > IntelliJ inspections at first and fix others special > > further? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 at 17:55, Maxim Muzafarov < > > > > [hidden email]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since the inspection rules are included in RunAll a few > > > > members > > > > > > of > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > community mentioned a wide distributed execution time > on > > TC > > > > > > agents: > > > > > > > > > > > - 1h:27m:38s publicagent17_9094 > > > > > > > > > > > - 38m:04s publicagent17_9094 > > > > > > > > > > > - 33m:29s publicagent17_9094 > > > > > > > > > > > - 17m:13s publicagent17_9094 > > > > > > > > > > > It seems that we should configure the resources > > > distribution > > > > > > > across TC > > > > > > > > > > > containers. Can anyone take a look at it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've also prepared the short list of rules to work on: > > > > > > > > > > > + Inconsistent line separators (6 matches) > > > > > > > > > > > + Problematic whitespace (4 matches) > > > > > > > > > > > + expression.equals("literal")' rather than > > > > > > > > > > > '"literal".equals(expression) (53 matches) > > > > > > > > > > > + Unnecessary 'null' check before 'instanceof' > expression > > > or > > > > call > > > > > > > (42 > > > > > > > > > matches) > > > > > > > > > > > + Redundant 'if' statement (69 matches) > > > > > > > > > > > + Redundant interface declaration (28 matches) > > > > > > > > > > > + Double negation (0 matches) > > > > > > > > > > > + Unnecessary code block (472 matches) > > > > > > > > > > > + Line is longer than allowed by code style (2614 > > matches) > > > > (Is it > > > > > > > > > > > possible to implement?) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 23:43, Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > > > > > [hidden email]> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Maxim, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you for your efforts to make this happen. Keep > > the > > > > pace! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please provide an example of how > Inspections > > > can > > > > > > fail, > > > > > > > so > > > > > > > > > I or > > > > > > > > > > > > another contributor could implement support of these > > > > failures > > > > > > > > > validation in > > > > > > > > > > > > the Tc Bot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 26 окт. 2018 г. в 18:27, Yakov Zhdanov < > > > > > > [hidden email] > > > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maxim, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for response, let's do it the way you > > suggested. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please consider adding more checks > > > > > > > > > > > > > - line endings. I think we should only have \n > > > > > > > > > > > > > - ensure blank line in the end of file > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All these are code reviews issues I pointed out > many > > > > times > > > > > > when > > > > > > > > > reviewing > > > > > > > > > > > > > conributions. It would be cool if we have TC build > > > > failing if > > > > > > > > > there is any. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --Yakov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Best regards, > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Andrey V. Mashenkov > |
|
|
Maxim,
It looks like we can't make logs more verbose due to possible bug, I've create a ticket in Jetbrains Jira [1]. We can just publish idea logs in artefacts as suggested in this manual [2]. For now, Inspections logs looks like this one [3]. Also, would you please to take a look at inspection report and check if we missed smth and there are any unwanted inspection turned on. [1] https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/TW-58422 [2] https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Reporting+Issues#ReportingIssues-IntelliJIDEAInspections [3] https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=2538111&buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_ExcludedInspections2&tab=artifacts On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 3:19 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]> wrote: > Maxim M, do you know if we can disable inspections by wildcard? E.g. > Android* ? > > чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 14:59, Andrey Mashenkov <[hidden email] > >: > > > Fixed memory issues with increasing heap size and forcing G1GC. > > > > Do we need all these plugins loaded for inspections? > > I've found a 'disable plugin' option in TC Inspections build > configuration, > > but it is unclear how to disable plugin correctly. > > Can someone take over this? > > > > > 46 plugins initialized in 1031 ms > > > 2018-12-13 10:55:24,875 [ 1342] INFO - llij.ide.plugins.PluginManager - > > > Loaded bundled plugins: Android Support (10.2.3), Ant Support (1.0), > CSS > > > Support (172.4574.11), Database Tools and SQL (172.4574.11), Eclipse > > > Integration (3.0), FreeMarker support (1.0), GWT Support (1.0), Gradle > > > (172.4574.11), Groovy (9.0), Guice (8.0), HTML Tools (2.0), Hibernate > > > Support (1.0), I18n for Java (172.4574.11), IDEA CORE (172.4574.11), > > > IntelliLang (8.0), JBoss Seam Support (1.0), JUnit (1.0), Java EE: Bean > > > Validation Support (1.1), Java EE: Contexts and Dependency Injection > > (1.1), > > > Java EE: EJB, JPA, Servlets (1.0), Java EE: Java Server Faces (2.2.X.), > > > Java EE: Web Services (JAX-WS) (1.9), Java Server Pages (JSP) > Integration > > > (1.0), JavaScript Support (1.0), Kotlin (1.1.4-release-IJ2017.2-3), > Maven > > > Integration (172.4574.11), Persistence Frameworks Support (1.0), Plugin > > > DevKit (1.0), Properties Support (172.4574.11), QuirksMode > (172.4574.11), > > > Spring AOP/@AspectJ (1.0), Spring Batch (1.0), Spring Data (1.0), > Spring > > > Integration Patterns (1.0), Spring Security (1.0), Spring Support > (1.0), > > > Spring Web Flow (1.0), Spring Web Services (1.0), Struts 1.x (2.0), > > Struts > > > 2 (1.0), TestNG-J (8.0), UI Designer (172.4574.11), Velocity support > > (1.0), > > > W3C Validators (2.0), WebLogic Integration (1.0), XPathView + XSLT > > Support > > > (4) > > > > > > Kotlin plugins fails to start, let's disable it. > > > > > > > > 2018-12-13 10:55:27,623 [ 4090] INFO - > > il.indexing.FileBasedIndexImpl - Rebuild requested for index > > org.jetbrains.kotlin.idea.versions.KotlinJvmMetadataVersionIndex > > > java.lang.Throwable > > > at > > > com.intellij.util.indexing.FileBasedIndex.requestRebuild(FileBasedIndex.java:68) > > > at > > > org.jetbrains.kotlin.idea.versions.KotlinUpdatePluginComponent.initComponent(KotlinUpdatePluginComponent.kt:54) > > > at > > > com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl$ComponentConfigComponentAdapter.getComponentInstance(ComponentManagerImpl.java:492) > > > at > > > com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl.createComponents(ComponentManagerImpl.java:118) > > > at > > > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.a(ApplicationImpl.java:462) > > > at > > > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.createComponents(ApplicationImpl.java:466) > > > at > > > com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl.init(ComponentManagerImpl.java:102) > > > at > > > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.load(ApplicationImpl.java:421) > > > at > > > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.load(ApplicationImpl.java:407) > > > at > com.intellij.idea.IdeaApplication.run(IdeaApplication.java:203) > > > > > > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 1:45 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]> > wrote: > > > > > Sure, let's apply. I hope all TC agents may handle 4G heap. > > > > > > чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 12:54, Andrey Mashenkov < > > [hidden email] > > > >: > > > > > > > Guys, > > > > > > > > I've just creates a copy of Inspections TC build task with GC logs > > turned > > > > on to check if there is any issues > > > > and found Inspections task spent too much time in STW due to long > Full > > GC > > > > pauses. > > > > > > > > I've tried to increase Xmx up to 4Gb and use G1GC got 2+ times better > > > > execution time down to ~15 min (~17 for 2G heap). > > > > Increasing heap size only is not very helpful as it just postpone > Full > > GC > > > > issues, but changing GC to G1GC gives noticeable result. > > > > > > > > Let's apply this optimization. > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 12:43 PM Vyacheslav Daradur < > > [hidden email]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi, Maxim, Nikolay, I have the following questions regarding > > > inspections: > > > > > > > > > > Should 'gnite_inspections_teamcity.xml' been imported into IDEA, > > since > > > > > 'ignite_inspections.xml' has been removed in actual master? > > > > > > > > > > Also, I've faced mismatching: if I use > > > > > '@SuppressWarnings("ErrorNotRethrown")' in code, then this will be > > > > > marked on TC as "Redundant suppression". If I removed this > > suppression > > > > > in "main" code base (not in tests) then it's fine and IDE does not > > > > > mark the code by inspection. But, if I use > > > > > 'GridTestUtils#assertThrows' in 'tests' code base, then IDE > requires > > > > > to suppress the inspection, if I have done it then TC marks this as > > > > > "Redundant suppression". > > > > > > > > > > What should I do in this case? > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 10:26 PM Andrey Mashenkov > > > > > <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > > > > > Have someone tried to investigate the issue related to Inspection > > TC > > > > task > > > > > > execution time variation (from 0.5 up to 1,5 hours)? > > > > > > Can we enable GC logs for this task or may be even get CPU, Disk, > > > > Network > > > > > > metrics? > > > > > > Can someone check if there are unnecessary Idea plugins starts > that > > > can > > > > > be > > > > > > safely disabled? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:52 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > [hidden email] > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm totally with you in this decision, let's move the file. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 27 нояб. 2018 г. в 16:24, Maxim Muzafarov < > > [hidden email] > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I propose to make inspection configuration default on the > > project > > > > > > > > level. I've created a new issue [1] for it. It can be easily > > done > > > > and > > > > > > > > recommend by IntelliJ documentation [2]. > > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Vyacheslav, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Can you share an example of your warnings? > > > > > > > > Currently, we have different inspection configurations: > > > > > > > > - ignite_inspections.xml - to import inspections as default > and > > > use > > > > > it > > > > > > > > daily. > > > > > > > > - ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml - config to run it on TC. > > Only > > > > > fixed > > > > > > > > rules in the project code are enabled. Each of these rules > are > > > > marked > > > > > > > > with ERROR level. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10422 > > > > > > > > [2] https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/code-inspection.html > > > > > > > > On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 at 13:58, Nikolay Izhikov < > > > [hidden email] > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hello, Vyacheslav. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, we have. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maxim Muzafarov, can you fix it, please? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г., 13:10 Vyacheslav Daradur > > > > [hidden email] > > > > > : > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Guys, why we have 2 different inspection files in the > repo? > > > > > > > > > > idea\ignite_inspections.xml > > > > > > > > > > idea\ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > AFAIK TeamCity is able to use the same inspection file > with > > > > IDE. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've imported 'idea\ignite_inspections.xml' in the IDE, > but > > > now > > > > > see > > > > > > > > > > inspection warnings for my PR on TC because of different > > > rules. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 6:06 PM Maxim Muzafarov < > > > > > [hidden email]> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yakov, Dmitry, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Which example of unsuccessful suite execution do we > need? > > > > > > > > > > > Does the current fail [1] in the master branch enough > to > > > > > configure > > > > > > > > > > > notifications by TC.Bot? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please consider adding more checks > > > > > > > > > > > > - line endings. I think we should only have \n > > > > > > > > > > > > - ensure blank line at the end of file > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me that `line endings` is easy to add, but > > for > > > > the > > > > > > > `blank > > > > > > > > > > > line at the end` we need as special regexp. Can we > focus > > on > > > > > > > built-in > > > > > > > > > > > IntelliJ inspections at first and fix others special > > > further? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 at 17:55, Maxim Muzafarov < > > > > > [hidden email]> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Since the inspection rules are included in RunAll a > few > > > > > members > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > > > community mentioned a wide distributed execution time > > on > > > TC > > > > > > > agents: > > > > > > > > > > > > - 1h:27m:38s publicagent17_9094 > > > > > > > > > > > > - 38m:04s publicagent17_9094 > > > > > > > > > > > > - 33m:29s publicagent17_9094 > > > > > > > > > > > > - 17m:13s publicagent17_9094 > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems that we should configure the resources > > > > distribution > > > > > > > > across TC > > > > > > > > > > > > containers. Can anyone take a look at it? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I've also prepared the short list of rules to work > on: > > > > > > > > > > > > + Inconsistent line separators (6 matches) > > > > > > > > > > > > + Problematic whitespace (4 matches) > > > > > > > > > > > > + expression.equals("literal")' rather than > > > > > > > > > > > > '"literal".equals(expression) (53 matches) > > > > > > > > > > > > + Unnecessary 'null' check before 'instanceof' > > expression > > > > or > > > > > call > > > > > > > > (42 > > > > > > > > > > matches) > > > > > > > > > > > > + Redundant 'if' statement (69 matches) > > > > > > > > > > > > + Redundant interface declaration (28 matches) > > > > > > > > > > > > + Double negation (0 matches) > > > > > > > > > > > > + Unnecessary code block (472 matches) > > > > > > > > > > > > + Line is longer than allowed by code style (2614 > > > matches) > > > > > (Is it > > > > > > > > > > > > possible to implement?) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 23:43, Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > > > > > > [hidden email]> > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Maxim, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you for your efforts to make this happen. > Keep > > > the > > > > > pace! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please provide an example of how > > Inspections > > > > can > > > > > > > fail, > > > > > > > > so > > > > > > > > > > I or > > > > > > > > > > > > > another contributor could implement support of > these > > > > > failures > > > > > > > > > > validation in > > > > > > > > > > > > > the Tc Bot. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 26 окт. 2018 г. в 18:27, Yakov Zhdanov < > > > > > > > [hidden email] > > > > > > > > >: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maxim, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for response, let's do it the way you > > > suggested. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please consider adding more checks > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - line endings. I think we should only have \n > > > > > > > > > > > > > > - ensure blank line in the end of file > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > All these are code reviews issues I pointed out > > many > > > > > times > > > > > > > when > > > > > > > > > > reviewing > > > > > > > > > > > > > > conributions. It would be cool if we have TC > build > > > > > failing if > > > > > > > > > > there is any. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --Yakov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Best regards, > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > -- Best regards, Andrey V. Mashenkov |
|
Andrey,
Thank you for solving this issue with GC pauses! I've checked the given report. The inspections configuration is correct, but it seems to me that we have enabled by default rules of included plugins (for instance, KotlinInternalInJava in the report is enabled). Can you share more details about `disable plugin` option you found? I see that idea instance starts with the default -Didea.plugins.path system property, can we change it so the plugins will be not loaded by default? On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 15:45, Andrey Mashenkov <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Maxim, > > It looks like we can't make logs more verbose due to possible bug, I've create a ticket in Jetbrains Jira [1]. > We can just publish idea logs in artefacts as suggested in this manual [2]. > > For now, Inspections logs looks like this one [3]. > Also, would you please to take a look at inspection report and check if we missed smth and there are any unwanted inspection turned on. > > [1] https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/TW-58422 > [2] https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Reporting+Issues#ReportingIssues-IntelliJIDEAInspections > [3] https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=2538111&buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_ExcludedInspections2&tab=artifacts > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 3:19 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> Maxim M, do you know if we can disable inspections by wildcard? E.g. >> Android* ? >> >> чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 14:59, Andrey Mashenkov <[hidden email]>: >> >> > Fixed memory issues with increasing heap size and forcing G1GC. >> > >> > Do we need all these plugins loaded for inspections? >> > I've found a 'disable plugin' option in TC Inspections build configuration, >> > but it is unclear how to disable plugin correctly. >> > Can someone take over this? >> > >> > > 46 plugins initialized in 1031 ms >> > > 2018-12-13 10:55:24,875 [ 1342] INFO - llij.ide.plugins.PluginManager - >> > > Loaded bundled plugins: Android Support (10.2.3), Ant Support (1.0), CSS >> > > Support (172.4574.11), Database Tools and SQL (172.4574.11), Eclipse >> > > Integration (3.0), FreeMarker support (1.0), GWT Support (1.0), Gradle >> > > (172.4574.11), Groovy (9.0), Guice (8.0), HTML Tools (2.0), Hibernate >> > > Support (1.0), I18n for Java (172.4574.11), IDEA CORE (172.4574.11), >> > > IntelliLang (8.0), JBoss Seam Support (1.0), JUnit (1.0), Java EE: Bean >> > > Validation Support (1.1), Java EE: Contexts and Dependency Injection >> > (1.1), >> > > Java EE: EJB, JPA, Servlets (1.0), Java EE: Java Server Faces (2.2.X.), >> > > Java EE: Web Services (JAX-WS) (1.9), Java Server Pages (JSP) Integration >> > > (1.0), JavaScript Support (1.0), Kotlin (1.1.4-release-IJ2017.2-3), Maven >> > > Integration (172.4574.11), Persistence Frameworks Support (1.0), Plugin >> > > DevKit (1.0), Properties Support (172.4574.11), QuirksMode (172.4574.11), >> > > Spring AOP/@AspectJ (1.0), Spring Batch (1.0), Spring Data (1.0), Spring >> > > Integration Patterns (1.0), Spring Security (1.0), Spring Support (1.0), >> > > Spring Web Flow (1.0), Spring Web Services (1.0), Struts 1.x (2.0), >> > Struts >> > > 2 (1.0), TestNG-J (8.0), UI Designer (172.4574.11), Velocity support >> > (1.0), >> > > W3C Validators (2.0), WebLogic Integration (1.0), XPathView + XSLT >> > Support >> > > (4) >> > >> > >> > Kotlin plugins fails to start, let's disable it. >> > >> > > >> > > 2018-12-13 10:55:27,623 [ 4090] INFO - >> > il.indexing.FileBasedIndexImpl - Rebuild requested for index >> > org.jetbrains.kotlin.idea.versions.KotlinJvmMetadataVersionIndex >> > > java.lang.Throwable >> > > at >> > com.intellij.util.indexing.FileBasedIndex.requestRebuild(FileBasedIndex.java:68) >> > > at >> > org.jetbrains.kotlin.idea.versions.KotlinUpdatePluginComponent.initComponent(KotlinUpdatePluginComponent.kt:54) >> > > at >> > com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl$ComponentConfigComponentAdapter.getComponentInstance(ComponentManagerImpl.java:492) >> > > at >> > com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl.createComponents(ComponentManagerImpl.java:118) >> > > at >> > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.a(ApplicationImpl.java:462) >> > > at >> > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.createComponents(ApplicationImpl.java:466) >> > > at >> > com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl.init(ComponentManagerImpl.java:102) >> > > at >> > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.load(ApplicationImpl.java:421) >> > > at >> > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.load(ApplicationImpl.java:407) >> > > at com.intellij.idea.IdeaApplication.run(IdeaApplication.java:203) >> > >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 1:45 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]> wrote: >> > >> > > Sure, let's apply. I hope all TC agents may handle 4G heap. >> > > >> > > чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 12:54, Andrey Mashenkov < >> > [hidden email] >> > > >: >> > > >> > > > Guys, >> > > > >> > > > I've just creates a copy of Inspections TC build task with GC logs >> > turned >> > > > on to check if there is any issues >> > > > and found Inspections task spent too much time in STW due to long Full >> > GC >> > > > pauses. >> > > > >> > > > I've tried to increase Xmx up to 4Gb and use G1GC got 2+ times better >> > > > execution time down to ~15 min (~17 for 2G heap). >> > > > Increasing heap size only is not very helpful as it just postpone Full >> > GC >> > > > issues, but changing GC to G1GC gives noticeable result. >> > > > >> > > > Let's apply this optimization. >> > > > Thoughts? >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 12:43 PM Vyacheslav Daradur < >> > [hidden email]> >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Hi, Maxim, Nikolay, I have the following questions regarding >> > > inspections: >> > > > > >> > > > > Should 'gnite_inspections_teamcity.xml' been imported into IDEA, >> > since >> > > > > 'ignite_inspections.xml' has been removed in actual master? >> > > > > >> > > > > Also, I've faced mismatching: if I use >> > > > > '@SuppressWarnings("ErrorNotRethrown")' in code, then this will be >> > > > > marked on TC as "Redundant suppression". If I removed this >> > suppression >> > > > > in "main" code base (not in tests) then it's fine and IDE does not >> > > > > mark the code by inspection. But, if I use >> > > > > 'GridTestUtils#assertThrows' in 'tests' code base, then IDE requires >> > > > > to suppress the inspection, if I have done it then TC marks this as >> > > > > "Redundant suppression". >> > > > > >> > > > > What should I do in this case? >> > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 10:26 PM Andrey Mashenkov >> > > > > <[hidden email]> wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Hi, >> > > > > > >> > > > > > Have someone tried to investigate the issue related to Inspection >> > TC >> > > > task >> > > > > > execution time variation (from 0.5 up to 1,5 hours)? >> > > > > > Can we enable GC logs for this task or may be even get CPU, Disk, >> > > > Network >> > > > > > metrics? >> > > > > > Can someone check if there are unnecessary Idea plugins starts that >> > > can >> > > > > be >> > > > > > safely disabled? >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:52 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email] >> > > >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > I'm totally with you in this decision, let's move the file. >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > вт, 27 нояб. 2018 г. в 16:24, Maxim Muzafarov < >> > [hidden email] >> > > >: >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Igniters, >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I propose to make inspection configuration default on the >> > project >> > > > > > > > level. I've created a new issue [1] for it. It can be easily >> > done >> > > > and >> > > > > > > > recommend by IntelliJ documentation [2]. >> > > > > > > > Thoughts? >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Vyacheslav, >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Can you share an example of your warnings? >> > > > > > > > Currently, we have different inspection configurations: >> > > > > > > > - ignite_inspections.xml - to import inspections as default and >> > > use >> > > > > it >> > > > > > > > daily. >> > > > > > > > - ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml - config to run it on TC. >> > Only >> > > > > fixed >> > > > > > > > rules in the project code are enabled. Each of these rules are >> > > > marked >> > > > > > > > with ERROR level. >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10422 >> > > > > > > > [2] https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/code-inspection.html >> > > > > > > > On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 at 13:58, Nikolay Izhikov < >> > > [hidden email] >> > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Hello, Vyacheslav. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Yes, we have. >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Maxim Muzafarov, can you fix it, please? >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г., 13:10 Vyacheslav Daradur >> > > > [hidden email] >> > > > > : >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Guys, why we have 2 different inspection files in the repo? >> > > > > > > > > > idea\ignite_inspections.xml >> > > > > > > > > > idea\ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > AFAIK TeamCity is able to use the same inspection file with >> > > > IDE. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > I've imported 'idea\ignite_inspections.xml' in the IDE, but >> > > now >> > > > > see >> > > > > > > > > > inspection warnings for my PR on TC because of different >> > > rules. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 6:06 PM Maxim Muzafarov < >> > > > > [hidden email]> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Yakov, Dmitry, >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Which example of unsuccessful suite execution do we need? >> > > > > > > > > > > Does the current fail [1] in the master branch enough to >> > > > > configure >> > > > > > > > > > > notifications by TC.Bot? >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Please consider adding more checks >> > > > > > > > > > > > - line endings. I think we should only have \n >> > > > > > > > > > > > - ensure blank line at the end of file >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me that `line endings` is easy to add, but >> > for >> > > > the >> > > > > > > `blank >> > > > > > > > > > > line at the end` we need as special regexp. Can we focus >> > on >> > > > > > > built-in >> > > > > > > > > > > IntelliJ inspections at first and fix others special >> > > further? >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > [1] >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv >> > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 at 17:55, Maxim Muzafarov < >> > > > > [hidden email]> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters, >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Since the inspection rules are included in RunAll a few >> > > > > members >> > > > > > > of >> > > > > > > > the >> > > > > > > > > > > > community mentioned a wide distributed execution time >> > on >> > > TC >> > > > > > > agents: >> > > > > > > > > > > > - 1h:27m:38s publicagent17_9094 >> > > > > > > > > > > > - 38m:04s publicagent17_9094 >> > > > > > > > > > > > - 33m:29s publicagent17_9094 >> > > > > > > > > > > > - 17m:13s publicagent17_9094 >> > > > > > > > > > > > It seems that we should configure the resources >> > > > distribution >> > > > > > > > across TC >> > > > > > > > > > > > containers. Can anyone take a look at it? >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > I've also prepared the short list of rules to work on: >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Inconsistent line separators (6 matches) >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Problematic whitespace (4 matches) >> > > > > > > > > > > > + expression.equals("literal")' rather than >> > > > > > > > > > > > '"literal".equals(expression) (53 matches) >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Unnecessary 'null' check before 'instanceof' >> > expression >> > > > or >> > > > > call >> > > > > > > > (42 >> > > > > > > > > > matches) >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Redundant 'if' statement (69 matches) >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Redundant interface declaration (28 matches) >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Double negation (0 matches) >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Unnecessary code block (472 matches) >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Line is longer than allowed by code style (2614 >> > > matches) >> > > > > (Is it >> > > > > > > > > > > > possible to implement?) >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT? >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 23:43, Dmitriy Pavlov < >> > > > > > > > [hidden email]> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Maxim, >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you for your efforts to make this happen. Keep >> > > the >> > > > > pace! >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please provide an example of how >> > Inspections >> > > > can >> > > > > > > fail, >> > > > > > > > so >> > > > > > > > > > I or >> > > > > > > > > > > > > another contributor could implement support of these >> > > > > failures >> > > > > > > > > > validation in >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the Tc Bot. >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 26 окт. 2018 г. в 18:27, Yakov Zhdanov < >> > > > > > > [hidden email] >> > > > > > > > >: >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maxim, >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for response, let's do it the way you >> > > suggested. >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please consider adding more checks >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - line endings. I think we should only have \n >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - ensure blank line in the end of file >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > All these are code reviews issues I pointed out >> > many >> > > > > times >> > > > > > > when >> > > > > > > > > > reviewing >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > conributions. It would be cool if we have TC build >> > > > > failing if >> > > > > > > > > > there is any. >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --Yakov >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- >> > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > -- >> > > > > > Best regards, >> > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > -- >> > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > -- >> > > > Best regards, >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Best regards, >> > Andrey V. Mashenkov >> > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Andrey V. Mashenkov |
|
|
Maxim,
Idea has a file in config directory ./config/disabled_plugins.txt , you can easily find it at you local machine. Teamcity Inspections runner has an option "Disabled plugins" where disabled_plugins.txt file content can be set. So, looks like we can disable useless plugins. But I'm not expert and can't suggest changes we can safely apply. On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 4:59 PM Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]> wrote: > Andrey, > > Thank you for solving this issue with GC pauses! I've checked the > given report. The inspections configuration is correct, but it seems > to me that we have enabled by default rules of included plugins (for > instance, KotlinInternalInJava in the report is enabled). > > Can you share more details about `disable plugin` option you found? > > I see that idea instance starts with the default -Didea.plugins.path > system property, can we change it so the plugins will be not loaded by > default? > On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 15:45, Andrey Mashenkov > <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > Maxim, > > > > It looks like we can't make logs more verbose due to possible bug, I've > create a ticket in Jetbrains Jira [1]. > > We can just publish idea logs in artefacts as suggested in this manual > [2]. > > > > For now, Inspections logs looks like this one [3]. > > Also, would you please to take a look at inspection report and check if > we missed smth and there are any unwanted inspection turned on. > > > > [1] https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/TW-58422 > > [2] > https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Reporting+Issues#ReportingIssues-IntelliJIDEAInspections > > [3] > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=2538111&buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_ExcludedInspections2&tab=artifacts > > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 3:19 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]> > wrote: > >> > >> Maxim M, do you know if we can disable inspections by wildcard? E.g. > >> Android* ? > >> > >> чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 14:59, Andrey Mashenkov < > [hidden email]>: > >> > >> > Fixed memory issues with increasing heap size and forcing G1GC. > >> > > >> > Do we need all these plugins loaded for inspections? > >> > I've found a 'disable plugin' option in TC Inspections build > configuration, > >> > but it is unclear how to disable plugin correctly. > >> > Can someone take over this? > >> > > >> > > 46 plugins initialized in 1031 ms > >> > > 2018-12-13 10:55:24,875 [ 1342] INFO - > llij.ide.plugins.PluginManager - > >> > > Loaded bundled plugins: Android Support (10.2.3), Ant Support > (1.0), CSS > >> > > Support (172.4574.11), Database Tools and SQL (172.4574.11), Eclipse > >> > > Integration (3.0), FreeMarker support (1.0), GWT Support (1.0), > Gradle > >> > > (172.4574.11), Groovy (9.0), Guice (8.0), HTML Tools (2.0), > Hibernate > >> > > Support (1.0), I18n for Java (172.4574.11), IDEA CORE (172.4574.11), > >> > > IntelliLang (8.0), JBoss Seam Support (1.0), JUnit (1.0), Java EE: > Bean > >> > > Validation Support (1.1), Java EE: Contexts and Dependency Injection > >> > (1.1), > >> > > Java EE: EJB, JPA, Servlets (1.0), Java EE: Java Server Faces > (2.2.X.), > >> > > Java EE: Web Services (JAX-WS) (1.9), Java Server Pages (JSP) > Integration > >> > > (1.0), JavaScript Support (1.0), Kotlin (1.1.4-release-IJ2017.2-3), > Maven > >> > > Integration (172.4574.11), Persistence Frameworks Support (1.0), > Plugin > >> > > DevKit (1.0), Properties Support (172.4574.11), QuirksMode > (172.4574.11), > >> > > Spring AOP/@AspectJ (1.0), Spring Batch (1.0), Spring Data (1.0), > Spring > >> > > Integration Patterns (1.0), Spring Security (1.0), Spring Support > (1.0), > >> > > Spring Web Flow (1.0), Spring Web Services (1.0), Struts 1.x (2.0), > >> > Struts > >> > > 2 (1.0), TestNG-J (8.0), UI Designer (172.4574.11), Velocity support > >> > (1.0), > >> > > W3C Validators (2.0), WebLogic Integration (1.0), XPathView + XSLT > >> > Support > >> > > (4) > >> > > >> > > >> > Kotlin plugins fails to start, let's disable it. > >> > > >> > > > >> > > 2018-12-13 10:55:27,623 [ 4090] INFO - > >> > il.indexing.FileBasedIndexImpl - Rebuild requested for index > >> > org.jetbrains.kotlin.idea.versions.KotlinJvmMetadataVersionIndex > >> > > java.lang.Throwable > >> > > at > >> > > com.intellij.util.indexing.FileBasedIndex.requestRebuild(FileBasedIndex.java:68) > >> > > at > >> > > org.jetbrains.kotlin.idea.versions.KotlinUpdatePluginComponent.initComponent(KotlinUpdatePluginComponent.kt:54) > >> > > at > >> > > com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl$ComponentConfigComponentAdapter.getComponentInstance(ComponentManagerImpl.java:492) > >> > > at > >> > > com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl.createComponents(ComponentManagerImpl.java:118) > >> > > at > >> > > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.a(ApplicationImpl.java:462) > >> > > at > >> > > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.createComponents(ApplicationImpl.java:466) > >> > > at > >> > > com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl.init(ComponentManagerImpl.java:102) > >> > > at > >> > > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.load(ApplicationImpl.java:421) > >> > > at > >> > > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.load(ApplicationImpl.java:407) > >> > > at > com.intellij.idea.IdeaApplication.run(IdeaApplication.java:203) > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 1:45 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > Sure, let's apply. I hope all TC agents may handle 4G heap. > >> > > > >> > > чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 12:54, Andrey Mashenkov < > >> > [hidden email] > >> > > >: > >> > > > >> > > > Guys, > >> > > > > >> > > > I've just creates a copy of Inspections TC build task with GC logs > >> > turned > >> > > > on to check if there is any issues > >> > > > and found Inspections task spent too much time in STW due to long > Full > >> > GC > >> > > > pauses. > >> > > > > >> > > > I've tried to increase Xmx up to 4Gb and use G1GC got 2+ times > better > >> > > > execution time down to ~15 min (~17 for 2G heap). > >> > > > Increasing heap size only is not very helpful as it just postpone > Full > >> > GC > >> > > > issues, but changing GC to G1GC gives noticeable result. > >> > > > > >> > > > Let's apply this optimization. > >> > > > Thoughts? > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 12:43 PM Vyacheslav Daradur < > >> > [hidden email]> > >> > > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > > Hi, Maxim, Nikolay, I have the following questions regarding > >> > > inspections: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Should 'gnite_inspections_teamcity.xml' been imported into IDEA, > >> > since > >> > > > > 'ignite_inspections.xml' has been removed in actual master? > >> > > > > > >> > > > > Also, I've faced mismatching: if I use > >> > > > > '@SuppressWarnings("ErrorNotRethrown")' in code, then this will > be > >> > > > > marked on TC as "Redundant suppression". If I removed this > >> > suppression > >> > > > > in "main" code base (not in tests) then it's fine and IDE does > not > >> > > > > mark the code by inspection. But, if I use > >> > > > > 'GridTestUtils#assertThrows' in 'tests' code base, then IDE > requires > >> > > > > to suppress the inspection, if I have done it then TC marks > this as > >> > > > > "Redundant suppression". > >> > > > > > >> > > > > What should I do in this case? > >> > > > > > >> > > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 10:26 PM Andrey Mashenkov > >> > > > > <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Hi, > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > Have someone tried to investigate the issue related to > Inspection > >> > TC > >> > > > task > >> > > > > > execution time variation (from 0.5 up to 1,5 hours)? > >> > > > > > Can we enable GC logs for this task or may be even get CPU, > Disk, > >> > > > Network > >> > > > > > metrics? > >> > > > > > Can someone check if there are unnecessary Idea plugins > starts that > >> > > can > >> > > > > be > >> > > > > > safely disabled? > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:52 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > [hidden email] > >> > > > >> > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > I'm totally with you in this decision, let's move the file. > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > вт, 27 нояб. 2018 г. в 16:24, Maxim Muzafarov < > >> > [hidden email] > >> > > >: > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Igniters, > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > I propose to make inspection configuration default on the > >> > project > >> > > > > > > > level. I've created a new issue [1] for it. It can be > easily > >> > done > >> > > > and > >> > > > > > > > recommend by IntelliJ documentation [2]. > >> > > > > > > > Thoughts? > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Vyacheslav, > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > Can you share an example of your warnings? > >> > > > > > > > Currently, we have different inspection configurations: > >> > > > > > > > - ignite_inspections.xml - to import inspections as > default and > >> > > use > >> > > > > it > >> > > > > > > > daily. > >> > > > > > > > - ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml - config to run it on > TC. > >> > Only > >> > > > > fixed > >> > > > > > > > rules in the project code are enabled. Each of these > rules are > >> > > > marked > >> > > > > > > > with ERROR level. > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10422 > >> > > > > > > > [2] > https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/code-inspection.html > >> > > > > > > > On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 at 13:58, Nikolay Izhikov < > >> > > [hidden email] > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Hello, Vyacheslav. > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Yes, we have. > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > Maxim Muzafarov, can you fix it, please? > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г., 13:10 Vyacheslav Daradur > >> > > > [hidden email] > >> > > > > : > >> > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > Guys, why we have 2 different inspection files in the > repo? > >> > > > > > > > > > idea\ignite_inspections.xml > >> > > > > > > > > > idea\ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > AFAIK TeamCity is able to use the same inspection > file with > >> > > > IDE. > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > I've imported 'idea\ignite_inspections.xml' in the > IDE, but > >> > > now > >> > > > > see > >> > > > > > > > > > inspection warnings for my PR on TC because of > different > >> > > rules. > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 6:06 PM Maxim Muzafarov < > >> > > > > [hidden email]> > >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Yakov, Dmitry, > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > Which example of unsuccessful suite execution do we > need? > >> > > > > > > > > > > Does the current fail [1] in the master branch > enough to > >> > > > > configure > >> > > > > > > > > > > notifications by TC.Bot? > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Please consider adding more checks > >> > > > > > > > > > > > - line endings. I think we should only have \n > >> > > > > > > > > > > > - ensure blank line at the end of file > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me that `line endings` is easy to add, > but > >> > for > >> > > > the > >> > > > > > > `blank > >> > > > > > > > > > > line at the end` we need as special regexp. Can we > focus > >> > on > >> > > > > > > built-in > >> > > > > > > > > > > IntelliJ inspections at first and fix others special > >> > > further? > >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > [1] > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv > >> > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 at 17:55, Maxim Muzafarov < > >> > > > > [hidden email]> > >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters, > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Since the inspection rules are included in RunAll > a few > >> > > > > members > >> > > > > > > of > >> > > > > > > > the > >> > > > > > > > > > > > community mentioned a wide distributed execution > time > >> > on > >> > > TC > >> > > > > > > agents: > >> > > > > > > > > > > > - 1h:27m:38s publicagent17_9094 > >> > > > > > > > > > > > - 38m:04s publicagent17_9094 > >> > > > > > > > > > > > - 33m:29s publicagent17_9094 > >> > > > > > > > > > > > - 17m:13s publicagent17_9094 > >> > > > > > > > > > > > It seems that we should configure the resources > >> > > > distribution > >> > > > > > > > across TC > >> > > > > > > > > > > > containers. Can anyone take a look at it? > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > I've also prepared the short list of rules to > work on: > >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Inconsistent line separators (6 matches) > >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Problematic whitespace (4 matches) > >> > > > > > > > > > > > + expression.equals("literal")' rather than > >> > > > > > > > > > > > '"literal".equals(expression) (53 matches) > >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Unnecessary 'null' check before 'instanceof' > >> > expression > >> > > > or > >> > > > > call > >> > > > > > > > (42 > >> > > > > > > > > > matches) > >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Redundant 'if' statement (69 matches) > >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Redundant interface declaration (28 matches) > >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Double negation (0 matches) > >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Unnecessary code block (472 matches) > >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Line is longer than allowed by code style (2614 > >> > > matches) > >> > > > > (Is it > >> > > > > > > > > > > > possible to implement?) > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT? > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 23:43, Dmitriy Pavlov < > >> > > > > > > > [hidden email]> > >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Maxim, > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you for your efforts to make this > happen. Keep > >> > > the > >> > > > > pace! > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please provide an example of how > >> > Inspections > >> > > > can > >> > > > > > > fail, > >> > > > > > > > so > >> > > > > > > > > > I or > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > another contributor could implement support of > these > >> > > > > failures > >> > > > > > > > > > validation in > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the Tc Bot. > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 26 окт. 2018 г. в 18:27, Yakov Zhdanov < > >> > > > > > > [hidden email] > >> > > > > > > > >: > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maxim, > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for response, let's do it the way you > >> > > suggested. > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please consider adding more checks > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - line endings. I think we should only have \n > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - ensure blank line in the end of file > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > All these are code reviews issues I pointed > out > >> > many > >> > > > > times > >> > > > > > > when > >> > > > > > > > > > reviewing > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > conributions. It would be cool if we have TC > build > >> > > > > failing if > >> > > > > > > > > > there is any. > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --Yakov > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > >> > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > >> > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > -- > >> > > > > > Best regards, > >> > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > -- > >> > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > -- > >> > > > Best regards, > >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Best regards, > >> > Andrey V. Mashenkov > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > -- Best regards, Andrey V. Mashenkov |
|
|
Andrey,
Thanks! I've consulted with the IntelliJ IDEA source code and found how this disabled plugins file should look like. I've created a new issue [1] and prepared PR [2] with the set of disabled plugins (maybe not complete set). I don't have access to change corresponding `~Excluded [Inspections] Core Debug` test suite properties. Can we test this PR? [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10682 [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5666 On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 17:35, Andrey Mashenkov <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Maxim, > > Idea has a file in config directory ./config/disabled_plugins.txt , you can easily find it at you local machine. > Teamcity Inspections runner has an option "Disabled plugins" where disabled_plugins.txt file content can be set. > > So, looks like we can disable useless plugins. > But I'm not expert and can't suggest changes we can safely apply. > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 4:59 PM Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> Andrey, >> >> Thank you for solving this issue with GC pauses! I've checked the >> given report. The inspections configuration is correct, but it seems >> to me that we have enabled by default rules of included plugins (for >> instance, KotlinInternalInJava in the report is enabled). >> >> Can you share more details about `disable plugin` option you found? >> >> I see that idea instance starts with the default -Didea.plugins.path >> system property, can we change it so the plugins will be not loaded by >> default? >> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 15:45, Andrey Mashenkov >> <[hidden email]> wrote: >> > >> > Maxim, >> > >> > It looks like we can't make logs more verbose due to possible bug, I've create a ticket in Jetbrains Jira [1]. >> > We can just publish idea logs in artefacts as suggested in this manual [2]. >> > >> > For now, Inspections logs looks like this one [3]. >> > Also, would you please to take a look at inspection report and check if we missed smth and there are any unwanted inspection turned on. >> > >> > [1] https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/TW-58422 >> > [2] https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Reporting+Issues#ReportingIssues-IntelliJIDEAInspections >> > [3] https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=2538111&buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_ExcludedInspections2&tab=artifacts >> > >> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 3:19 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> >> >> Maxim M, do you know if we can disable inspections by wildcard? E.g. >> >> Android* ? >> >> >> >> чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 14:59, Andrey Mashenkov <[hidden email]>: >> >> >> >> > Fixed memory issues with increasing heap size and forcing G1GC. >> >> > >> >> > Do we need all these plugins loaded for inspections? >> >> > I've found a 'disable plugin' option in TC Inspections build configuration, >> >> > but it is unclear how to disable plugin correctly. >> >> > Can someone take over this? >> >> > >> >> > > 46 plugins initialized in 1031 ms >> >> > > 2018-12-13 10:55:24,875 [ 1342] INFO - llij.ide.plugins.PluginManager - >> >> > > Loaded bundled plugins: Android Support (10.2.3), Ant Support (1.0), CSS >> >> > > Support (172.4574.11), Database Tools and SQL (172.4574.11), Eclipse >> >> > > Integration (3.0), FreeMarker support (1.0), GWT Support (1.0), Gradle >> >> > > (172.4574.11), Groovy (9.0), Guice (8.0), HTML Tools (2.0), Hibernate >> >> > > Support (1.0), I18n for Java (172.4574.11), IDEA CORE (172.4574.11), >> >> > > IntelliLang (8.0), JBoss Seam Support (1.0), JUnit (1.0), Java EE: Bean >> >> > > Validation Support (1.1), Java EE: Contexts and Dependency Injection >> >> > (1.1), >> >> > > Java EE: EJB, JPA, Servlets (1.0), Java EE: Java Server Faces (2.2.X.), >> >> > > Java EE: Web Services (JAX-WS) (1.9), Java Server Pages (JSP) Integration >> >> > > (1.0), JavaScript Support (1.0), Kotlin (1.1.4-release-IJ2017.2-3), Maven >> >> > > Integration (172.4574.11), Persistence Frameworks Support (1.0), Plugin >> >> > > DevKit (1.0), Properties Support (172.4574.11), QuirksMode (172.4574.11), >> >> > > Spring AOP/@AspectJ (1.0), Spring Batch (1.0), Spring Data (1.0), Spring >> >> > > Integration Patterns (1.0), Spring Security (1.0), Spring Support (1.0), >> >> > > Spring Web Flow (1.0), Spring Web Services (1.0), Struts 1.x (2.0), >> >> > Struts >> >> > > 2 (1.0), TestNG-J (8.0), UI Designer (172.4574.11), Velocity support >> >> > (1.0), >> >> > > W3C Validators (2.0), WebLogic Integration (1.0), XPathView + XSLT >> >> > Support >> >> > > (4) >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Kotlin plugins fails to start, let's disable it. >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> > > 2018-12-13 10:55:27,623 [ 4090] INFO - >> >> > il.indexing.FileBasedIndexImpl - Rebuild requested for index >> >> > org.jetbrains.kotlin.idea.versions.KotlinJvmMetadataVersionIndex >> >> > > java.lang.Throwable >> >> > > at >> >> > com.intellij.util.indexing.FileBasedIndex.requestRebuild(FileBasedIndex.java:68) >> >> > > at >> >> > org.jetbrains.kotlin.idea.versions.KotlinUpdatePluginComponent.initComponent(KotlinUpdatePluginComponent.kt:54) >> >> > > at >> >> > com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl$ComponentConfigComponentAdapter.getComponentInstance(ComponentManagerImpl.java:492) >> >> > > at >> >> > com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl.createComponents(ComponentManagerImpl.java:118) >> >> > > at >> >> > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.a(ApplicationImpl.java:462) >> >> > > at >> >> > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.createComponents(ApplicationImpl.java:466) >> >> > > at >> >> > com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl.init(ComponentManagerImpl.java:102) >> >> > > at >> >> > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.load(ApplicationImpl.java:421) >> >> > > at >> >> > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.load(ApplicationImpl.java:407) >> >> > > at com.intellij.idea.IdeaApplication.run(IdeaApplication.java:203) >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 1:45 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > Sure, let's apply. I hope all TC agents may handle 4G heap. >> >> > > >> >> > > чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 12:54, Andrey Mashenkov < >> >> > [hidden email] >> >> > > >: >> >> > > >> >> > > > Guys, >> >> > > > >> >> > > > I've just creates a copy of Inspections TC build task with GC logs >> >> > turned >> >> > > > on to check if there is any issues >> >> > > > and found Inspections task spent too much time in STW due to long Full >> >> > GC >> >> > > > pauses. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > I've tried to increase Xmx up to 4Gb and use G1GC got 2+ times better >> >> > > > execution time down to ~15 min (~17 for 2G heap). >> >> > > > Increasing heap size only is not very helpful as it just postpone Full >> >> > GC >> >> > > > issues, but changing GC to G1GC gives noticeable result. >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Let's apply this optimization. >> >> > > > Thoughts? >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 12:43 PM Vyacheslav Daradur < >> >> > [hidden email]> >> >> > > > wrote: >> >> > > > >> >> > > > > Hi, Maxim, Nikolay, I have the following questions regarding >> >> > > inspections: >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > Should 'gnite_inspections_teamcity.xml' been imported into IDEA, >> >> > since >> >> > > > > 'ignite_inspections.xml' has been removed in actual master? >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > Also, I've faced mismatching: if I use >> >> > > > > '@SuppressWarnings("ErrorNotRethrown")' in code, then this will be >> >> > > > > marked on TC as "Redundant suppression". If I removed this >> >> > suppression >> >> > > > > in "main" code base (not in tests) then it's fine and IDE does not >> >> > > > > mark the code by inspection. But, if I use >> >> > > > > 'GridTestUtils#assertThrows' in 'tests' code base, then IDE requires >> >> > > > > to suppress the inspection, if I have done it then TC marks this as >> >> > > > > "Redundant suppression". >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > What should I do in this case? >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 10:26 PM Andrey Mashenkov >> >> > > > > <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Hi, >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Have someone tried to investigate the issue related to Inspection >> >> > TC >> >> > > > task >> >> > > > > > execution time variation (from 0.5 up to 1,5 hours)? >> >> > > > > > Can we enable GC logs for this task or may be even get CPU, Disk, >> >> > > > Network >> >> > > > > > metrics? >> >> > > > > > Can someone check if there are unnecessary Idea plugins starts that >> >> > > can >> >> > > > > be >> >> > > > > > safely disabled? >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:52 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email] >> >> > > >> >> > > > > wrote: >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > I'm totally with you in this decision, let's move the file. >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > вт, 27 нояб. 2018 г. в 16:24, Maxim Muzafarov < >> >> > [hidden email] >> >> > > >: >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Igniters, >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > I propose to make inspection configuration default on the >> >> > project >> >> > > > > > > > level. I've created a new issue [1] for it. It can be easily >> >> > done >> >> > > > and >> >> > > > > > > > recommend by IntelliJ documentation [2]. >> >> > > > > > > > Thoughts? >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Vyacheslav, >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Can you share an example of your warnings? >> >> > > > > > > > Currently, we have different inspection configurations: >> >> > > > > > > > - ignite_inspections.xml - to import inspections as default and >> >> > > use >> >> > > > > it >> >> > > > > > > > daily. >> >> > > > > > > > - ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml - config to run it on TC. >> >> > Only >> >> > > > > fixed >> >> > > > > > > > rules in the project code are enabled. Each of these rules are >> >> > > > marked >> >> > > > > > > > with ERROR level. >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10422 >> >> > > > > > > > [2] https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/code-inspection.html >> >> > > > > > > > On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 at 13:58, Nikolay Izhikov < >> >> > > [hidden email] >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > > > wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hello, Vyacheslav. >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Yes, we have. >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Maxim Muzafarov, can you fix it, please? >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г., 13:10 Vyacheslav Daradur >> >> > > > [hidden email] >> >> > > > > : >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Guys, why we have 2 different inspection files in the repo? >> >> > > > > > > > > > idea\ignite_inspections.xml >> >> > > > > > > > > > idea\ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > AFAIK TeamCity is able to use the same inspection file with >> >> > > > IDE. >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > I've imported 'idea\ignite_inspections.xml' in the IDE, but >> >> > > now >> >> > > > > see >> >> > > > > > > > > > inspection warnings for my PR on TC because of different >> >> > > rules. >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 6:06 PM Maxim Muzafarov < >> >> > > > > [hidden email]> >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Yakov, Dmitry, >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Which example of unsuccessful suite execution do we need? >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Does the current fail [1] in the master branch enough to >> >> > > > > configure >> >> > > > > > > > > > > notifications by TC.Bot? >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Please consider adding more checks >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - line endings. I think we should only have \n >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - ensure blank line at the end of file >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me that `line endings` is easy to add, but >> >> > for >> >> > > > the >> >> > > > > > > `blank >> >> > > > > > > > > > > line at the end` we need as special regexp. Can we focus >> >> > on >> >> > > > > > > built-in >> >> > > > > > > > > > > IntelliJ inspections at first and fix others special >> >> > > further? >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > [1] >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv >> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 at 17:55, Maxim Muzafarov < >> >> > > > > [hidden email]> >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters, >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Since the inspection rules are included in RunAll a few >> >> > > > > members >> >> > > > > > > of >> >> > > > > > > > the >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > community mentioned a wide distributed execution time >> >> > on >> >> > > TC >> >> > > > > > > agents: >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - 1h:27m:38s publicagent17_9094 >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - 38m:04s publicagent17_9094 >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - 33m:29s publicagent17_9094 >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - 17m:13s publicagent17_9094 >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > It seems that we should configure the resources >> >> > > > distribution >> >> > > > > > > > across TC >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > containers. Can anyone take a look at it? >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I've also prepared the short list of rules to work on: >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Inconsistent line separators (6 matches) >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Problematic whitespace (4 matches) >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + expression.equals("literal")' rather than >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > '"literal".equals(expression) (53 matches) >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Unnecessary 'null' check before 'instanceof' >> >> > expression >> >> > > > or >> >> > > > > call >> >> > > > > > > > (42 >> >> > > > > > > > > > matches) >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Redundant 'if' statement (69 matches) >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Redundant interface declaration (28 matches) >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Double negation (0 matches) >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Unnecessary code block (472 matches) >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Line is longer than allowed by code style (2614 >> >> > > matches) >> >> > > > > (Is it >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > possible to implement?) >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT? >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 23:43, Dmitriy Pavlov < >> >> > > > > > > > [hidden email]> >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Maxim, >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you for your efforts to make this happen. Keep >> >> > > the >> >> > > > > pace! >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please provide an example of how >> >> > Inspections >> >> > > > can >> >> > > > > > > fail, >> >> > > > > > > > so >> >> > > > > > > > > > I or >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > another contributor could implement support of these >> >> > > > > failures >> >> > > > > > > > > > validation in >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the Tc Bot. >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 26 окт. 2018 г. в 18:27, Yakov Zhdanov < >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email] >> >> > > > > > > > >: >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maxim, >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for response, let's do it the way you >> >> > > suggested. >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please consider adding more checks >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - line endings. I think we should only have \n >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - ensure blank line in the end of file >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > All these are code reviews issues I pointed out >> >> > many >> >> > > > > times >> >> > > > > > > when >> >> > > > > > > > > > reviewing >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > conributions. It would be cool if we have TC build >> >> > > > > failing if >> >> > > > > > > > > > there is any. >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --Yakov >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > -- >> >> > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > -- >> >> > > > > > Best regards, >> >> > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > -- >> >> > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > -- >> >> > > > Best regards, >> >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > -- >> >> > Best regards, >> >> > Andrey V. Mashenkov >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Best regards, >> > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > -- > Best regards, > Andrey V. Mashenkov |
|
|
Maxim,
Thanks, I'll check PR and let you know about results. For now, Inspections task execution time looks much better (15-22 min), but fluctuation is still noticeable. On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 11:13 AM Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]> wrote: > Andrey, > > Thanks! I've consulted with the IntelliJ IDEA source code and found > how this disabled plugins file should look like. I've created a new > issue [1] and prepared PR [2] with the set of disabled plugins (maybe > not complete set). I don't have access to change corresponding > `~Excluded [Inspections] Core Debug` test suite properties. > Can we test this PR? > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10682 > [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5666 > On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 17:35, Andrey Mashenkov > <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > Maxim, > > > > Idea has a file in config directory ./config/disabled_plugins.txt , you > can easily find it at you local machine. > > Teamcity Inspections runner has an option "Disabled plugins" where > disabled_plugins.txt file content can be set. > > > > So, looks like we can disable useless plugins. > > But I'm not expert and can't suggest changes we can safely apply. > > > > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 4:59 PM Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]> > wrote: > >> > >> Andrey, > >> > >> Thank you for solving this issue with GC pauses! I've checked the > >> given report. The inspections configuration is correct, but it seems > >> to me that we have enabled by default rules of included plugins (for > >> instance, KotlinInternalInJava in the report is enabled). > >> > >> Can you share more details about `disable plugin` option you found? > >> > >> I see that idea instance starts with the default -Didea.plugins.path > >> system property, can we change it so the plugins will be not loaded by > >> default? > >> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 15:45, Andrey Mashenkov > >> <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> > > >> > Maxim, > >> > > >> > It looks like we can't make logs more verbose due to possible bug, > I've create a ticket in Jetbrains Jira [1]. > >> > We can just publish idea logs in artefacts as suggested in this > manual [2]. > >> > > >> > For now, Inspections logs looks like this one [3]. > >> > Also, would you please to take a look at inspection report and check > if we missed smth and there are any unwanted inspection turned on. > >> > > >> > [1] https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/TW-58422 > >> > [2] > https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Reporting+Issues#ReportingIssues-IntelliJIDEAInspections > >> > [3] > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=2538111&buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_ExcludedInspections2&tab=artifacts > >> > > >> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 3:19 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]> > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Maxim M, do you know if we can disable inspections by wildcard? E.g. > >> >> Android* ? > >> >> > >> >> чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 14:59, Andrey Mashenkov < > [hidden email]>: > >> >> > >> >> > Fixed memory issues with increasing heap size and forcing G1GC. > >> >> > > >> >> > Do we need all these plugins loaded for inspections? > >> >> > I've found a 'disable plugin' option in TC Inspections build > configuration, > >> >> > but it is unclear how to disable plugin correctly. > >> >> > Can someone take over this? > >> >> > > >> >> > > 46 plugins initialized in 1031 ms > >> >> > > 2018-12-13 10:55:24,875 [ 1342] INFO - > llij.ide.plugins.PluginManager - > >> >> > > Loaded bundled plugins: Android Support (10.2.3), Ant Support > (1.0), CSS > >> >> > > Support (172.4574.11), Database Tools and SQL (172.4574.11), > Eclipse > >> >> > > Integration (3.0), FreeMarker support (1.0), GWT Support (1.0), > Gradle > >> >> > > (172.4574.11), Groovy (9.0), Guice (8.0), HTML Tools (2.0), > Hibernate > >> >> > > Support (1.0), I18n for Java (172.4574.11), IDEA CORE > (172.4574.11), > >> >> > > IntelliLang (8.0), JBoss Seam Support (1.0), JUnit (1.0), Java > EE: Bean > >> >> > > Validation Support (1.1), Java EE: Contexts and Dependency > Injection > >> >> > (1.1), > >> >> > > Java EE: EJB, JPA, Servlets (1.0), Java EE: Java Server Faces > (2.2.X.), > >> >> > > Java EE: Web Services (JAX-WS) (1.9), Java Server Pages (JSP) > Integration > >> >> > > (1.0), JavaScript Support (1.0), Kotlin > (1.1.4-release-IJ2017.2-3), Maven > >> >> > > Integration (172.4574.11), Persistence Frameworks Support (1.0), > Plugin > >> >> > > DevKit (1.0), Properties Support (172.4574.11), QuirksMode > (172.4574.11), > >> >> > > Spring AOP/@AspectJ (1.0), Spring Batch (1.0), Spring Data > (1.0), Spring > >> >> > > Integration Patterns (1.0), Spring Security (1.0), Spring > Support (1.0), > >> >> > > Spring Web Flow (1.0), Spring Web Services (1.0), Struts 1.x > (2.0), > >> >> > Struts > >> >> > > 2 (1.0), TestNG-J (8.0), UI Designer (172.4574.11), Velocity > support > >> >> > (1.0), > >> >> > > W3C Validators (2.0), WebLogic Integration (1.0), XPathView + > XSLT > >> >> > Support > >> >> > > (4) > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > Kotlin plugins fails to start, let's disable it. > >> >> > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > 2018-12-13 10:55:27,623 [ 4090] INFO - > >> >> > il.indexing.FileBasedIndexImpl - Rebuild requested for index > >> >> > org.jetbrains.kotlin.idea.versions.KotlinJvmMetadataVersionIndex > >> >> > > java.lang.Throwable > >> >> > > at > >> >> > > com.intellij.util.indexing.FileBasedIndex.requestRebuild(FileBasedIndex.java:68) > >> >> > > at > >> >> > > org.jetbrains.kotlin.idea.versions.KotlinUpdatePluginComponent.initComponent(KotlinUpdatePluginComponent.kt:54) > >> >> > > at > >> >> > > com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl$ComponentConfigComponentAdapter.getComponentInstance(ComponentManagerImpl.java:492) > >> >> > > at > >> >> > > com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl.createComponents(ComponentManagerImpl.java:118) > >> >> > > at > >> >> > > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.a(ApplicationImpl.java:462) > >> >> > > at > >> >> > > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.createComponents(ApplicationImpl.java:466) > >> >> > > at > >> >> > > com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl.init(ComponentManagerImpl.java:102) > >> >> > > at > >> >> > > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.load(ApplicationImpl.java:421) > >> >> > > at > >> >> > > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.load(ApplicationImpl.java:407) > >> >> > > at > com.intellij.idea.IdeaApplication.run(IdeaApplication.java:203) > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 1:45 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]> > wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > > Sure, let's apply. I hope all TC agents may handle 4G heap. > >> >> > > > >> >> > > чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 12:54, Andrey Mashenkov < > >> >> > [hidden email] > >> >> > > >: > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > Guys, > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > I've just creates a copy of Inspections TC build task with GC > logs > >> >> > turned > >> >> > > > on to check if there is any issues > >> >> > > > and found Inspections task spent too much time in STW due to > long Full > >> >> > GC > >> >> > > > pauses. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > I've tried to increase Xmx up to 4Gb and use G1GC got 2+ times > better > >> >> > > > execution time down to ~15 min (~17 for 2G heap). > >> >> > > > Increasing heap size only is not very helpful as it just > postpone Full > >> >> > GC > >> >> > > > issues, but changing GC to G1GC gives noticeable result. > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > Let's apply this optimization. > >> >> > > > Thoughts? > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 12:43 PM Vyacheslav Daradur < > >> >> > [hidden email]> > >> >> > > > wrote: > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > Hi, Maxim, Nikolay, I have the following questions regarding > >> >> > > inspections: > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Should 'gnite_inspections_teamcity.xml' been imported into > IDEA, > >> >> > since > >> >> > > > > 'ignite_inspections.xml' has been removed in actual master? > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > Also, I've faced mismatching: if I use > >> >> > > > > '@SuppressWarnings("ErrorNotRethrown")' in code, then this > will be > >> >> > > > > marked on TC as "Redundant suppression". If I removed this > >> >> > suppression > >> >> > > > > in "main" code base (not in tests) then it's fine and IDE > does not > >> >> > > > > mark the code by inspection. But, if I use > >> >> > > > > 'GridTestUtils#assertThrows' in 'tests' code base, then IDE > requires > >> >> > > > > to suppress the inspection, if I have done it then TC marks > this as > >> >> > > > > "Redundant suppression". > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > What should I do in this case? > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 10:26 PM Andrey Mashenkov > >> >> > > > > <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Hi, > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > Have someone tried to investigate the issue related to > Inspection > >> >> > TC > >> >> > > > task > >> >> > > > > > execution time variation (from 0.5 up to 1,5 hours)? > >> >> > > > > > Can we enable GC logs for this task or may be even get > CPU, Disk, > >> >> > > > Network > >> >> > > > > > metrics? > >> >> > > > > > Can someone check if there are unnecessary Idea plugins > starts that > >> >> > > can > >> >> > > > > be > >> >> > > > > > safely disabled? > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:52 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > [hidden email] > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > > wrote: > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > I'm totally with you in this decision, let's move the > file. > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > вт, 27 нояб. 2018 г. в 16:24, Maxim Muzafarov < > >> >> > [hidden email] > >> >> > > >: > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Igniters, > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > I propose to make inspection configuration default on > the > >> >> > project > >> >> > > > > > > > level. I've created a new issue [1] for it. It can be > easily > >> >> > done > >> >> > > > and > >> >> > > > > > > > recommend by IntelliJ documentation [2]. > >> >> > > > > > > > Thoughts? > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Vyacheslav, > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > Can you share an example of your warnings? > >> >> > > > > > > > Currently, we have different inspection configurations: > >> >> > > > > > > > - ignite_inspections.xml - to import inspections as > default and > >> >> > > use > >> >> > > > > it > >> >> > > > > > > > daily. > >> >> > > > > > > > - ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml - config to run it > on TC. > >> >> > Only > >> >> > > > > fixed > >> >> > > > > > > > rules in the project code are enabled. Each of these > rules are > >> >> > > > marked > >> >> > > > > > > > with ERROR level. > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10422 > >> >> > > > > > > > [2] > https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/code-inspection.html > >> >> > > > > > > > On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 at 13:58, Nikolay Izhikov < > >> >> > > [hidden email] > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > wrote: > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Hello, Vyacheslav. > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Yes, we have. > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > Maxim Muzafarov, can you fix it, please? > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г., 13:10 Vyacheslav Daradur > >> >> > > > [hidden email] > >> >> > > > > : > >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Guys, why we have 2 different inspection files in > the repo? > >> >> > > > > > > > > > idea\ignite_inspections.xml > >> >> > > > > > > > > > idea\ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > AFAIK TeamCity is able to use the same inspection > file with > >> >> > > > IDE. > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > I've imported 'idea\ignite_inspections.xml' in the > IDE, but > >> >> > > now > >> >> > > > > see > >> >> > > > > > > > > > inspection warnings for my PR on TC because of > different > >> >> > > rules. > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 6:06 PM Maxim Muzafarov < > >> >> > > > > [hidden email]> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Yakov, Dmitry, > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Which example of unsuccessful suite execution do > we need? > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Does the current fail [1] in the master branch > enough to > >> >> > > > > configure > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > notifications by TC.Bot? > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Please consider adding more checks > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - line endings. I think we should only have \n > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - ensure blank line at the end of file > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me that `line endings` is easy to > add, but > >> >> > for > >> >> > > > the > >> >> > > > > > > `blank > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > line at the end` we need as special regexp. Can > we focus > >> >> > on > >> >> > > > > > > built-in > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > IntelliJ inspections at first and fix others > special > >> >> > > further? > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > [1] > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 at 17:55, Maxim Muzafarov < > >> >> > > > > [hidden email]> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters, > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Since the inspection rules are included in > RunAll a few > >> >> > > > > members > >> >> > > > > > > of > >> >> > > > > > > > the > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > community mentioned a wide distributed > execution time > >> >> > on > >> >> > > TC > >> >> > > > > > > agents: > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - 1h:27m:38s publicagent17_9094 > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - 38m:04s publicagent17_9094 > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - 33m:29s publicagent17_9094 > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - 17m:13s publicagent17_9094 > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > It seems that we should configure the resources > >> >> > > > distribution > >> >> > > > > > > > across TC > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > containers. Can anyone take a look at it? > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I've also prepared the short list of rules to > work on: > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Inconsistent line separators (6 matches) > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Problematic whitespace (4 matches) > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + expression.equals("literal")' rather than > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > '"literal".equals(expression) (53 matches) > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Unnecessary 'null' check before 'instanceof' > >> >> > expression > >> >> > > > or > >> >> > > > > call > >> >> > > > > > > > (42 > >> >> > > > > > > > > > matches) > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Redundant 'if' statement (69 matches) > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Redundant interface declaration (28 matches) > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Double negation (0 matches) > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Unnecessary code block (472 matches) > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Line is longer than allowed by code style > (2614 > >> >> > > matches) > >> >> > > > > (Is it > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > possible to implement?) > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT? > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 23:43, Dmitriy Pavlov < > >> >> > > > > > > > [hidden email]> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Maxim, > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you for your efforts to make this > happen. Keep > >> >> > > the > >> >> > > > > pace! > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please provide an example of how > >> >> > Inspections > >> >> > > > can > >> >> > > > > > > fail, > >> >> > > > > > > > so > >> >> > > > > > > > > > I or > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > another contributor could implement support > of these > >> >> > > > > failures > >> >> > > > > > > > > > validation in > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the Tc Bot. > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 26 окт. 2018 г. в 18:27, Yakov Zhdanov < > >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email] > >> >> > > > > > > > >: > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maxim, > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for response, let's do it the way > you > >> >> > > suggested. > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please consider adding more checks > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - line endings. I think we should only > have \n > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - ensure blank line in the end of file > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > All these are code reviews issues I > pointed out > >> >> > many > >> >> > > > > times > >> >> > > > > > > when > >> >> > > > > > > > > > reviewing > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > conributions. It would be cool if we have > TC build > >> >> > > > > failing if > >> >> > > > > > > > > > there is any. > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --Yakov > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > -- > >> >> > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > -- > >> >> > > > > > Best regards, > >> >> > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > -- > >> >> > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > -- > >> >> > > > Best regards, > >> >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > -- > >> >> > Best regards, > >> >> > Andrey V. Mashenkov > >> >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Best regards, > >> > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > -- Best regards, Andrey V. Mashenkov |
|
|
Maxim,
PR is incomplete. Some plugins should be disabled with different id\name. Maven plugin shouldn't be disabled as Idea Inspector use it to use Ignite project pom file. Please, find details in ticket. On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 12:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov < [hidden email]> wrote: > Maxim, > > Thanks, I'll check PR and let you know about results. > > For now, Inspections task execution time looks much better (15-22 min), > but fluctuation is still noticeable. > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 11:13 AM Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]> > wrote: > >> Andrey, >> >> Thanks! I've consulted with the IntelliJ IDEA source code and found >> how this disabled plugins file should look like. I've created a new >> issue [1] and prepared PR [2] with the set of disabled plugins (maybe >> not complete set). I don't have access to change corresponding >> `~Excluded [Inspections] Core Debug` test suite properties. >> Can we test this PR? >> >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10682 >> [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5666 >> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 17:35, Andrey Mashenkov >> <[hidden email]> wrote: >> > >> > Maxim, >> > >> > Idea has a file in config directory ./config/disabled_plugins.txt , you >> can easily find it at you local machine. >> > Teamcity Inspections runner has an option "Disabled plugins" where >> disabled_plugins.txt file content can be set. >> > >> > So, looks like we can disable useless plugins. >> > But I'm not expert and can't suggest changes we can safely apply. >> > >> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 4:59 PM Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Andrey, >> >> >> >> Thank you for solving this issue with GC pauses! I've checked the >> >> given report. The inspections configuration is correct, but it seems >> >> to me that we have enabled by default rules of included plugins (for >> >> instance, KotlinInternalInJava in the report is enabled). >> >> >> >> Can you share more details about `disable plugin` option you found? >> >> >> >> I see that idea instance starts with the default -Didea.plugins.path >> >> system property, can we change it so the plugins will be not loaded by >> >> default? >> >> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 15:45, Andrey Mashenkov >> >> <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Maxim, >> >> > >> >> > It looks like we can't make logs more verbose due to possible bug, >> I've create a ticket in Jetbrains Jira [1]. >> >> > We can just publish idea logs in artefacts as suggested in this >> manual [2]. >> >> > >> >> > For now, Inspections logs looks like this one [3]. >> >> > Also, would you please to take a look at inspection report and check >> if we missed smth and there are any unwanted inspection turned on. >> >> > >> >> > [1] https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/TW-58422 >> >> > [2] >> https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Reporting+Issues#ReportingIssues-IntelliJIDEAInspections >> >> > [3] >> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=2538111&buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_ExcludedInspections2&tab=artifacts >> >> > >> >> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 3:19 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Maxim M, do you know if we can disable inspections by wildcard? E.g. >> >> >> Android* ? >> >> >> >> >> >> чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 14:59, Andrey Mashenkov < >> [hidden email]>: >> >> >> >> >> >> > Fixed memory issues with increasing heap size and forcing G1GC. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Do we need all these plugins loaded for inspections? >> >> >> > I've found a 'disable plugin' option in TC Inspections build >> configuration, >> >> >> > but it is unclear how to disable plugin correctly. >> >> >> > Can someone take over this? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > 46 plugins initialized in 1031 ms >> >> >> > > 2018-12-13 10:55:24,875 [ 1342] INFO - >> llij.ide.plugins.PluginManager - >> >> >> > > Loaded bundled plugins: Android Support (10.2.3), Ant Support >> (1.0), CSS >> >> >> > > Support (172.4574.11), Database Tools and SQL (172.4574.11), >> Eclipse >> >> >> > > Integration (3.0), FreeMarker support (1.0), GWT Support (1.0), >> Gradle >> >> >> > > (172.4574.11), Groovy (9.0), Guice (8.0), HTML Tools (2.0), >> Hibernate >> >> >> > > Support (1.0), I18n for Java (172.4574.11), IDEA CORE >> (172.4574.11), >> >> >> > > IntelliLang (8.0), JBoss Seam Support (1.0), JUnit (1.0), Java >> EE: Bean >> >> >> > > Validation Support (1.1), Java EE: Contexts and Dependency >> Injection >> >> >> > (1.1), >> >> >> > > Java EE: EJB, JPA, Servlets (1.0), Java EE: Java Server Faces >> (2.2.X.), >> >> >> > > Java EE: Web Services (JAX-WS) (1.9), Java Server Pages (JSP) >> Integration >> >> >> > > (1.0), JavaScript Support (1.0), Kotlin >> (1.1.4-release-IJ2017.2-3), Maven >> >> >> > > Integration (172.4574.11), Persistence Frameworks Support >> (1.0), Plugin >> >> >> > > DevKit (1.0), Properties Support (172.4574.11), QuirksMode >> (172.4574.11), >> >> >> > > Spring AOP/@AspectJ (1.0), Spring Batch (1.0), Spring Data >> (1.0), Spring >> >> >> > > Integration Patterns (1.0), Spring Security (1.0), Spring >> Support (1.0), >> >> >> > > Spring Web Flow (1.0), Spring Web Services (1.0), Struts 1.x >> (2.0), >> >> >> > Struts >> >> >> > > 2 (1.0), TestNG-J (8.0), UI Designer (172.4574.11), Velocity >> support >> >> >> > (1.0), >> >> >> > > W3C Validators (2.0), WebLogic Integration (1.0), XPathView + >> XSLT >> >> >> > Support >> >> >> > > (4) >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Kotlin plugins fails to start, let's disable it. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > 2018-12-13 10:55:27,623 [ 4090] INFO - >> >> >> > il.indexing.FileBasedIndexImpl - Rebuild requested for index >> >> >> > org.jetbrains.kotlin.idea.versions.KotlinJvmMetadataVersionIndex >> >> >> > > java.lang.Throwable >> >> >> > > at >> >> >> > >> com.intellij.util.indexing.FileBasedIndex.requestRebuild(FileBasedIndex.java:68) >> >> >> > > at >> >> >> > >> org.jetbrains.kotlin.idea.versions.KotlinUpdatePluginComponent.initComponent(KotlinUpdatePluginComponent.kt:54) >> >> >> > > at >> >> >> > >> com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl$ComponentConfigComponentAdapter.getComponentInstance(ComponentManagerImpl.java:492) >> >> >> > > at >> >> >> > >> com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl.createComponents(ComponentManagerImpl.java:118) >> >> >> > > at >> >> >> > >> com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.a(ApplicationImpl.java:462) >> >> >> > > at >> >> >> > >> com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.createComponents(ApplicationImpl.java:466) >> >> >> > > at >> >> >> > >> com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl.init(ComponentManagerImpl.java:102) >> >> >> > > at >> >> >> > >> com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.load(ApplicationImpl.java:421) >> >> >> > > at >> >> >> > >> com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.load(ApplicationImpl.java:407) >> >> >> > > at >> com.intellij.idea.IdeaApplication.run(IdeaApplication.java:203) >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 1:45 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < >> [hidden email]> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > Sure, let's apply. I hope all TC agents may handle 4G heap. >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 12:54, Andrey Mashenkov < >> >> >> > [hidden email] >> >> >> > > >: >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > > Guys, >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > I've just creates a copy of Inspections TC build task with GC >> logs >> >> >> > turned >> >> >> > > > on to check if there is any issues >> >> >> > > > and found Inspections task spent too much time in STW due to >> long Full >> >> >> > GC >> >> >> > > > pauses. >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > I've tried to increase Xmx up to 4Gb and use G1GC got 2+ >> times better >> >> >> > > > execution time down to ~15 min (~17 for 2G heap). >> >> >> > > > Increasing heap size only is not very helpful as it just >> postpone Full >> >> >> > GC >> >> >> > > > issues, but changing GC to G1GC gives noticeable result. >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > Let's apply this optimization. >> >> >> > > > Thoughts? >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 12:43 PM Vyacheslav Daradur < >> >> >> > [hidden email]> >> >> >> > > > wrote: >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > > Hi, Maxim, Nikolay, I have the following questions regarding >> >> >> > > inspections: >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > Should 'gnite_inspections_teamcity.xml' been imported into >> IDEA, >> >> >> > since >> >> >> > > > > 'ignite_inspections.xml' has been removed in actual master? >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > Also, I've faced mismatching: if I use >> >> >> > > > > '@SuppressWarnings("ErrorNotRethrown")' in code, then this >> will be >> >> >> > > > > marked on TC as "Redundant suppression". If I removed this >> >> >> > suppression >> >> >> > > > > in "main" code base (not in tests) then it's fine and IDE >> does not >> >> >> > > > > mark the code by inspection. But, if I use >> >> >> > > > > 'GridTestUtils#assertThrows' in 'tests' code base, then IDE >> requires >> >> >> > > > > to suppress the inspection, if I have done it then TC marks >> this as >> >> >> > > > > "Redundant suppression". >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > What should I do in this case? >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 10:26 PM Andrey Mashenkov >> >> >> > > > > <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > Hi, >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > Have someone tried to investigate the issue related to >> Inspection >> >> >> > TC >> >> >> > > > task >> >> >> > > > > > execution time variation (from 0.5 up to 1,5 hours)? >> >> >> > > > > > Can we enable GC logs for this task or may be even get >> CPU, Disk, >> >> >> > > > Network >> >> >> > > > > > metrics? >> >> >> > > > > > Can someone check if there are unnecessary Idea plugins >> starts that >> >> >> > > can >> >> >> > > > > be >> >> >> > > > > > safely disabled? >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:52 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < >> [hidden email] >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > > > wrote: >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > I'm totally with you in this decision, let's move the >> file. >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > вт, 27 нояб. 2018 г. в 16:24, Maxim Muzafarov < >> >> >> > [hidden email] >> >> >> > > >: >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Igniters, >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > I propose to make inspection configuration default on >> the >> >> >> > project >> >> >> > > > > > > > level. I've created a new issue [1] for it. It can be >> easily >> >> >> > done >> >> >> > > > and >> >> >> > > > > > > > recommend by IntelliJ documentation [2]. >> >> >> > > > > > > > Thoughts? >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Vyacheslav, >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Can you share an example of your warnings? >> >> >> > > > > > > > Currently, we have different inspection >> configurations: >> >> >> > > > > > > > - ignite_inspections.xml - to import inspections as >> default and >> >> >> > > use >> >> >> > > > > it >> >> >> > > > > > > > daily. >> >> >> > > > > > > > - ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml - config to run it >> on TC. >> >> >> > Only >> >> >> > > > > fixed >> >> >> > > > > > > > rules in the project code are enabled. Each of these >> rules are >> >> >> > > > marked >> >> >> > > > > > > > with ERROR level. >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > [1] >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10422 >> >> >> > > > > > > > [2] >> https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/code-inspection.html >> >> >> > > > > > > > On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 at 13:58, Nikolay Izhikov < >> >> >> > > [hidden email] >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > wrote: >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > Hello, Vyacheslav. >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > Yes, we have. >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > Maxim Muzafarov, can you fix it, please? >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г., 13:10 Vyacheslav Daradur >> >> >> > > > [hidden email] >> >> >> > > > > : >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > Guys, why we have 2 different inspection files in >> the repo? >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > idea\ignite_inspections.xml >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > idea\ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > AFAIK TeamCity is able to use the same inspection >> file with >> >> >> > > > IDE. >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > I've imported 'idea\ignite_inspections.xml' in >> the IDE, but >> >> >> > > now >> >> >> > > > > see >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > inspection warnings for my PR on TC because of >> different >> >> >> > > rules. >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 6:06 PM Maxim Muzafarov < >> >> >> > > > > [hidden email]> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Yakov, Dmitry, >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Which example of unsuccessful suite execution >> do we need? >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Does the current fail [1] in the master branch >> enough to >> >> >> > > > > configure >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > notifications by TC.Bot? >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Please consider adding more checks >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - line endings. I think we should only have \n >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - ensure blank line at the end of file >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me that `line endings` is easy to >> add, but >> >> >> > for >> >> >> > > > the >> >> >> > > > > > > `blank >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > line at the end` we need as special regexp. Can >> we focus >> >> >> > on >> >> >> > > > > > > built-in >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > IntelliJ inspections at first and fix others >> special >> >> >> > > further? >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > [1] >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 at 17:55, Maxim Muzafarov < >> >> >> > > > > [hidden email]> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters, >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Since the inspection rules are included in >> RunAll a few >> >> >> > > > > members >> >> >> > > > > > > of >> >> >> > > > > > > > the >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > community mentioned a wide distributed >> execution time >> >> >> > on >> >> >> > > TC >> >> >> > > > > > > agents: >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - 1h:27m:38s publicagent17_9094 >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - 38m:04s publicagent17_9094 >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - 33m:29s publicagent17_9094 >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - 17m:13s publicagent17_9094 >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > It seems that we should configure the >> resources >> >> >> > > > distribution >> >> >> > > > > > > > across TC >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > containers. Can anyone take a look at it? >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I've also prepared the short list of rules to >> work on: >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Inconsistent line separators (6 matches) >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Problematic whitespace (4 matches) >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + expression.equals("literal")' rather than >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > '"literal".equals(expression) (53 matches) >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Unnecessary 'null' check before 'instanceof' >> >> >> > expression >> >> >> > > > or >> >> >> > > > > call >> >> >> > > > > > > > (42 >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > matches) >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Redundant 'if' statement (69 matches) >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Redundant interface declaration (28 matches) >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Double negation (0 matches) >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Unnecessary code block (472 matches) >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Line is longer than allowed by code style >> (2614 >> >> >> > > matches) >> >> >> > > > > (Is it >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > possible to implement?) >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT? >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 23:43, Dmitriy Pavlov < >> >> >> > > > > > > > [hidden email]> >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Maxim, >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you for your efforts to make this >> happen. Keep >> >> >> > > the >> >> >> > > > > pace! >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please provide an example of how >> >> >> > Inspections >> >> >> > > > can >> >> >> > > > > > > fail, >> >> >> > > > > > > > so >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > I or >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > another contributor could implement support >> of these >> >> >> > > > > failures >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > validation in >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the Tc Bot. >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 26 окт. 2018 г. в 18:27, Yakov Zhdanov < >> >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email] >> >> >> > > > > > > > >: >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maxim, >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for response, let's do it the way >> you >> >> >> > > suggested. >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please consider adding more checks >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - line endings. I think we should only >> have \n >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - ensure blank line in the end of file >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > All these are code reviews issues I >> pointed out >> >> >> > many >> >> >> > > > > times >> >> >> > > > > > > when >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > reviewing >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > conributions. It would be cool if we have >> TC build >> >> >> > > > > failing if >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > there is any. >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --Yakov >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > -- >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > -- >> >> >> > > > > > Best regards, >> >> >> > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > -- >> >> >> > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > -- >> >> >> > > > Best regards, >> >> >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > -- >> >> >> > Best regards, >> >> >> > Andrey V. Mashenkov >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > -- >> >> > Best regards, >> >> > Andrey V. Mashenkov >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > Best regards, >> > Andrey V. Mashenkov >> > > > -- > Best regards, > Andrey V. Mashenkov > -- Best regards, Andrey V. Mashenkov |
|
|
Folks,
There is a strange error on TC https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=2556875&buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore It appeared after TC update to the latest version. Sincerely, Dmitry Pavlov пт, 14 дек. 2018 г. в 16:09, Andrey Mashenkov <[hidden email]>: > Maxim, > > PR is incomplete. Some plugins should be disabled with different id\name. > Maven plugin shouldn't be disabled as Idea Inspector use it to use Ignite > project pom file. > > Please, find details in ticket. > > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 12:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov < > [hidden email]> wrote: > > > Maxim, > > > > Thanks, I'll check PR and let you know about results. > > > > For now, Inspections task execution time looks much better (15-22 min), > > but fluctuation is still noticeable. > > > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 11:13 AM Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]> > > wrote: > > > >> Andrey, > >> > >> Thanks! I've consulted with the IntelliJ IDEA source code and found > >> how this disabled plugins file should look like. I've created a new > >> issue [1] and prepared PR [2] with the set of disabled plugins (maybe > >> not complete set). I don't have access to change corresponding > >> `~Excluded [Inspections] Core Debug` test suite properties. > >> Can we test this PR? > >> > >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10682 > >> [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5666 > >> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 17:35, Andrey Mashenkov > >> <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> > > >> > Maxim, > >> > > >> > Idea has a file in config directory ./config/disabled_plugins.txt , > you > >> can easily find it at you local machine. > >> > Teamcity Inspections runner has an option "Disabled plugins" where > >> disabled_plugins.txt file content can be set. > >> > > >> > So, looks like we can disable useless plugins. > >> > But I'm not expert and can't suggest changes we can safely apply. > >> > > >> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 4:59 PM Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]> > >> wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Andrey, > >> >> > >> >> Thank you for solving this issue with GC pauses! I've checked the > >> >> given report. The inspections configuration is correct, but it seems > >> >> to me that we have enabled by default rules of included plugins (for > >> >> instance, KotlinInternalInJava in the report is enabled). > >> >> > >> >> Can you share more details about `disable plugin` option you found? > >> >> > >> >> I see that idea instance starts with the default -Didea.plugins.path > >> >> system property, can we change it so the plugins will be not loaded > by > >> >> default? > >> >> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 15:45, Andrey Mashenkov > >> >> <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> > Maxim, > >> >> > > >> >> > It looks like we can't make logs more verbose due to possible bug, > >> I've create a ticket in Jetbrains Jira [1]. > >> >> > We can just publish idea logs in artefacts as suggested in this > >> manual [2]. > >> >> > > >> >> > For now, Inspections logs looks like this one [3]. > >> >> > Also, would you please to take a look at inspection report and > check > >> if we missed smth and there are any unwanted inspection turned on. > >> >> > > >> >> > [1] https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/TW-58422 > >> >> > [2] > >> > https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Reporting+Issues#ReportingIssues-IntelliJIDEAInspections > >> >> > [3] > >> > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=2538111&buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_ExcludedInspections2&tab=artifacts > >> >> > > >> >> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 3:19 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email] > > > >> wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Maxim M, do you know if we can disable inspections by wildcard? > E.g. > >> >> >> Android* ? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 14:59, Andrey Mashenkov < > >> [hidden email]>: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Fixed memory issues with increasing heap size and forcing G1GC. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Do we need all these plugins loaded for inspections? > >> >> >> > I've found a 'disable plugin' option in TC Inspections build > >> configuration, > >> >> >> > but it is unclear how to disable plugin correctly. > >> >> >> > Can someone take over this? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > 46 plugins initialized in 1031 ms > >> >> >> > > 2018-12-13 10:55:24,875 [ 1342] INFO - > >> llij.ide.plugins.PluginManager - > >> >> >> > > Loaded bundled plugins: Android Support (10.2.3), Ant Support > >> (1.0), CSS > >> >> >> > > Support (172.4574.11), Database Tools and SQL (172.4574.11), > >> Eclipse > >> >> >> > > Integration (3.0), FreeMarker support (1.0), GWT Support > (1.0), > >> Gradle > >> >> >> > > (172.4574.11), Groovy (9.0), Guice (8.0), HTML Tools (2.0), > >> Hibernate > >> >> >> > > Support (1.0), I18n for Java (172.4574.11), IDEA CORE > >> (172.4574.11), > >> >> >> > > IntelliLang (8.0), JBoss Seam Support (1.0), JUnit (1.0), Java > >> EE: Bean > >> >> >> > > Validation Support (1.1), Java EE: Contexts and Dependency > >> Injection > >> >> >> > (1.1), > >> >> >> > > Java EE: EJB, JPA, Servlets (1.0), Java EE: Java Server Faces > >> (2.2.X.), > >> >> >> > > Java EE: Web Services (JAX-WS) (1.9), Java Server Pages (JSP) > >> Integration > >> >> >> > > (1.0), JavaScript Support (1.0), Kotlin > >> (1.1.4-release-IJ2017.2-3), Maven > >> >> >> > > Integration (172.4574.11), Persistence Frameworks Support > >> (1.0), Plugin > >> >> >> > > DevKit (1.0), Properties Support (172.4574.11), QuirksMode > >> (172.4574.11), > >> >> >> > > Spring AOP/@AspectJ (1.0), Spring Batch (1.0), Spring Data > >> (1.0), Spring > >> >> >> > > Integration Patterns (1.0), Spring Security (1.0), Spring > >> Support (1.0), > >> >> >> > > Spring Web Flow (1.0), Spring Web Services (1.0), Struts 1.x > >> (2.0), > >> >> >> > Struts > >> >> >> > > 2 (1.0), TestNG-J (8.0), UI Designer (172.4574.11), Velocity > >> support > >> >> >> > (1.0), > >> >> >> > > W3C Validators (2.0), WebLogic Integration (1.0), XPathView + > >> XSLT > >> >> >> > Support > >> >> >> > > (4) > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Kotlin plugins fails to start, let's disable it. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > 2018-12-13 10:55:27,623 [ 4090] INFO - > >> >> >> > il.indexing.FileBasedIndexImpl - Rebuild requested for index > >> >> >> > org.jetbrains.kotlin.idea.versions.KotlinJvmMetadataVersionIndex > >> >> >> > > java.lang.Throwable > >> >> >> > > at > >> >> >> > > >> > com.intellij.util.indexing.FileBasedIndex.requestRebuild(FileBasedIndex.java:68) > >> >> >> > > at > >> >> >> > > >> > org.jetbrains.kotlin.idea.versions.KotlinUpdatePluginComponent.initComponent(KotlinUpdatePluginComponent.kt:54) > >> >> >> > > at > >> >> >> > > >> > com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl$ComponentConfigComponentAdapter.getComponentInstance(ComponentManagerImpl.java:492) > >> >> >> > > at > >> >> >> > > >> > com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl.createComponents(ComponentManagerImpl.java:118) > >> >> >> > > at > >> >> >> > > >> > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.a(ApplicationImpl.java:462) > >> >> >> > > at > >> >> >> > > >> > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.createComponents(ApplicationImpl.java:466) > >> >> >> > > at > >> >> >> > > >> > com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl.init(ComponentManagerImpl.java:102) > >> >> >> > > at > >> >> >> > > >> > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.load(ApplicationImpl.java:421) > >> >> >> > > at > >> >> >> > > >> > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.load(ApplicationImpl.java:407) > >> >> >> > > at > >> com.intellij.idea.IdeaApplication.run(IdeaApplication.java:203) > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 1:45 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > >> [hidden email]> wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > Sure, let's apply. I hope all TC agents may handle 4G heap. > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 12:54, Andrey Mashenkov < > >> >> >> > [hidden email] > >> >> >> > > >: > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > Guys, > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > I've just creates a copy of Inspections TC build task with > GC > >> logs > >> >> >> > turned > >> >> >> > > > on to check if there is any issues > >> >> >> > > > and found Inspections task spent too much time in STW due to > >> long Full > >> >> >> > GC > >> >> >> > > > pauses. > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > I've tried to increase Xmx up to 4Gb and use G1GC got 2+ > >> times better > >> >> >> > > > execution time down to ~15 min (~17 for 2G heap). > >> >> >> > > > Increasing heap size only is not very helpful as it just > >> postpone Full > >> >> >> > GC > >> >> >> > > > issues, but changing GC to G1GC gives noticeable result. > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > Let's apply this optimization. > >> >> >> > > > Thoughts? > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 12:43 PM Vyacheslav Daradur < > >> >> >> > [hidden email]> > >> >> >> > > > wrote: > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > Hi, Maxim, Nikolay, I have the following questions > regarding > >> >> >> > > inspections: > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > Should 'gnite_inspections_teamcity.xml' been imported into > >> IDEA, > >> >> >> > since > >> >> >> > > > > 'ignite_inspections.xml' has been removed in actual > master? > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > Also, I've faced mismatching: if I use > >> >> >> > > > > '@SuppressWarnings("ErrorNotRethrown")' in code, then this > >> will be > >> >> >> > > > > marked on TC as "Redundant suppression". If I removed this > >> >> >> > suppression > >> >> >> > > > > in "main" code base (not in tests) then it's fine and IDE > >> does not > >> >> >> > > > > mark the code by inspection. But, if I use > >> >> >> > > > > 'GridTestUtils#assertThrows' in 'tests' code base, then > IDE > >> requires > >> >> >> > > > > to suppress the inspection, if I have done it then TC > marks > >> this as > >> >> >> > > > > "Redundant suppression". > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > What should I do in this case? > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 10:26 PM Andrey Mashenkov > >> >> >> > > > > <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > Hi, > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > Have someone tried to investigate the issue related to > >> Inspection > >> >> >> > TC > >> >> >> > > > task > >> >> >> > > > > > execution time variation (from 0.5 up to 1,5 hours)? > >> >> >> > > > > > Can we enable GC logs for this task or may be even get > >> CPU, Disk, > >> >> >> > > > Network > >> >> >> > > > > > metrics? > >> >> >> > > > > > Can someone check if there are unnecessary Idea plugins > >> starts that > >> >> >> > > can > >> >> >> > > > > be > >> >> >> > > > > > safely disabled? > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:52 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > >> [hidden email] > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > > wrote: > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > I'm totally with you in this decision, let's move the > >> file. > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > вт, 27 нояб. 2018 г. в 16:24, Maxim Muzafarov < > >> >> >> > [hidden email] > >> >> >> > > >: > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Igniters, > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > I propose to make inspection configuration default > on > >> the > >> >> >> > project > >> >> >> > > > > > > > level. I've created a new issue [1] for it. It can > be > >> easily > >> >> >> > done > >> >> >> > > > and > >> >> >> > > > > > > > recommend by IntelliJ documentation [2]. > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Thoughts? > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Vyacheslav, > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Can you share an example of your warnings? > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Currently, we have different inspection > >> configurations: > >> >> >> > > > > > > > - ignite_inspections.xml - to import inspections as > >> default and > >> >> >> > > use > >> >> >> > > > > it > >> >> >> > > > > > > > daily. > >> >> >> > > > > > > > - ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml - config to run it > >> on TC. > >> >> >> > Only > >> >> >> > > > > fixed > >> >> >> > > > > > > > rules in the project code are enabled. Each of these > >> rules are > >> >> >> > > > marked > >> >> >> > > > > > > > with ERROR level. > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > [1] > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10422 > >> >> >> > > > > > > > [2] > >> https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/code-inspection.html > >> >> >> > > > > > > > On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 at 13:58, Nikolay Izhikov < > >> >> >> > > [hidden email] > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > wrote: > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > Hello, Vyacheslav. > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > Yes, we have. > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > Maxim Muzafarov, can you fix it, please? > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г., 13:10 Vyacheslav Daradur > >> >> >> > > > [hidden email] > >> >> >> > > > > : > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > Guys, why we have 2 different inspection files > in > >> the repo? > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > idea\ignite_inspections.xml > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > idea\ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > AFAIK TeamCity is able to use the same > inspection > >> file with > >> >> >> > > > IDE. > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > I've imported 'idea\ignite_inspections.xml' in > >> the IDE, but > >> >> >> > > now > >> >> >> > > > > see > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > inspection warnings for my PR on TC because of > >> different > >> >> >> > > rules. > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 6:06 PM Maxim Muzafarov > < > >> >> >> > > > > [hidden email]> > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Yakov, Dmitry, > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Which example of unsuccessful suite execution > >> do we need? > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Does the current fail [1] in the master branch > >> enough to > >> >> >> > > > > configure > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > notifications by TC.Bot? > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Please consider adding more checks > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - line endings. I think we should only have > \n > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - ensure blank line at the end of file > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me that `line endings` is easy to > >> add, but > >> >> >> > for > >> >> >> > > > the > >> >> >> > > > > > > `blank > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > line at the end` we need as special regexp. > Can > >> we focus > >> >> >> > on > >> >> >> > > > > > > built-in > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > IntelliJ inspections at first and fix others > >> special > >> >> >> > > further? > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > [1] > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > >> > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 at 17:55, Maxim Muzafarov > < > >> >> >> > > > > [hidden email]> > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters, > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Since the inspection rules are included in > >> RunAll a few > >> >> >> > > > > members > >> >> >> > > > > > > of > >> >> >> > > > > > > > the > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > community mentioned a wide distributed > >> execution time > >> >> >> > on > >> >> >> > > TC > >> >> >> > > > > > > agents: > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - 1h:27m:38s publicagent17_9094 > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - 38m:04s publicagent17_9094 > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - 33m:29s publicagent17_9094 > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - 17m:13s publicagent17_9094 > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > It seems that we should configure the > >> resources > >> >> >> > > > distribution > >> >> >> > > > > > > > across TC > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > containers. Can anyone take a look at it? > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I've also prepared the short list of rules > to > >> work on: > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Inconsistent line separators (6 matches) > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Problematic whitespace (4 matches) > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + expression.equals("literal")' rather than > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > '"literal".equals(expression) (53 matches) > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Unnecessary 'null' check before > 'instanceof' > >> >> >> > expression > >> >> >> > > > or > >> >> >> > > > > call > >> >> >> > > > > > > > (42 > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > matches) > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Redundant 'if' statement (69 matches) > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Redundant interface declaration (28 > matches) > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Double negation (0 matches) > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Unnecessary code block (472 matches) > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Line is longer than allowed by code style > >> (2614 > >> >> >> > > matches) > >> >> >> > > > > (Is it > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > possible to implement?) > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT? > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 23:43, Dmitriy > Pavlov < > >> >> >> > > > > > > > [hidden email]> > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Maxim, > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you for your efforts to make this > >> happen. Keep > >> >> >> > > the > >> >> >> > > > > pace! > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please provide an example of how > >> >> >> > Inspections > >> >> >> > > > can > >> >> >> > > > > > > fail, > >> >> >> > > > > > > > so > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > I or > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > another contributor could implement > support > >> of these > >> >> >> > > > > failures > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > validation in > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the Tc Bot. > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 26 окт. 2018 г. в 18:27, Yakov > Zhdanov < > >> >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email] > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >: > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maxim, > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for response, let's do it the way > >> you > >> >> >> > > suggested. > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please consider adding more checks > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - line endings. I think we should only > >> have \n > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - ensure blank line in the end of file > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > All these are code reviews issues I > >> pointed out > >> >> >> > many > >> >> >> > > > > times > >> >> >> > > > > > > when > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > reviewing > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > conributions. It would be cool if we > have > >> TC build > >> >> >> > > > > failing if > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > there is any. > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --Yakov > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > -- > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > -- > >> >> >> > > > > > Best regards, > >> >> >> > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > -- > >> >> >> > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > -- > >> >> >> > > > Best regards, > >> >> >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > -- > >> >> >> > Best regards, > >> >> >> > Andrey V. Mashenkov > >> >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > -- > >> >> > Best regards, > >> >> > Andrey V. Mashenkov > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > -- > >> > Best regards, > >> > Andrey V. Mashenkov > >> > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Andrey V. Mashenkov > |
|
|
Dmitry,
It seems to me that we have two independent issues here. 1. An `Unexpected error during build messages processing in TeamCity` error message which is related to TC agent configuration. Suppose, server.log will provide us more details about it. I have to access there. 2. A new set of inspection rules was introduced in 2018+ IntelliJ IDEA and they should be disabled in our ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml configuration file. They are not fixed in the Apache Ignite project code yet. I've prepared the issue [1] for it. Please, take a look. Andrey, I've fixed disabled plugins file according to your suggestions. The issue [2] is ready. I've re-run `Excluded [Inspections] Core Debug` suite and the log details show me that now only 3 plugins are enabled: IDEA CORE, Maven Integration, Properties Support. It seems to me that it's correct. [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10709 [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10682 On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 15:22, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Folks, > > There is a strange error on TC > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=2556875&buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore > > It appeared after TC update to the latest version. > > Sincerely, > Dmitry Pavlov > > пт, 14 дек. 2018 г. в 16:09, Andrey Mashenkov <[hidden email]>: > > > Maxim, > > > > PR is incomplete. Some plugins should be disabled with different id\name. > > Maven plugin shouldn't be disabled as Idea Inspector use it to use Ignite > > project pom file. > > > > Please, find details in ticket. > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 12:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov < > > [hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > Maxim, > > > > > > Thanks, I'll check PR and let you know about results. > > > > > > For now, Inspections task execution time looks much better (15-22 min), > > > but fluctuation is still noticeable. > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 11:13 AM Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]> > > > wrote: > > > > > >> Andrey, > > >> > > >> Thanks! I've consulted with the IntelliJ IDEA source code and found > > >> how this disabled plugins file should look like. I've created a new > > >> issue [1] and prepared PR [2] with the set of disabled plugins (maybe > > >> not complete set). I don't have access to change corresponding > > >> `~Excluded [Inspections] Core Debug` test suite properties. > > >> Can we test this PR? > > >> > > >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10682 > > >> [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5666 > > >> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 17:35, Andrey Mashenkov > > >> <[hidden email]> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > Maxim, > > >> > > > >> > Idea has a file in config directory ./config/disabled_plugins.txt , > > you > > >> can easily find it at you local machine. > > >> > Teamcity Inspections runner has an option "Disabled plugins" where > > >> disabled_plugins.txt file content can be set. > > >> > > > >> > So, looks like we can disable useless plugins. > > >> > But I'm not expert and can't suggest changes we can safely apply. > > >> > > > >> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 4:59 PM Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]> > > >> wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> Andrey, > > >> >> > > >> >> Thank you for solving this issue with GC pauses! I've checked the > > >> >> given report. The inspections configuration is correct, but it seems > > >> >> to me that we have enabled by default rules of included plugins (for > > >> >> instance, KotlinInternalInJava in the report is enabled). > > >> >> > > >> >> Can you share more details about `disable plugin` option you found? > > >> >> > > >> >> I see that idea instance starts with the default -Didea.plugins.path > > >> >> system property, can we change it so the plugins will be not loaded > > by > > >> >> default? > > >> >> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 15:45, Andrey Mashenkov > > >> >> <[hidden email]> wrote: > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Maxim, > > >> >> > > > >> >> > It looks like we can't make logs more verbose due to possible bug, > > >> I've create a ticket in Jetbrains Jira [1]. > > >> >> > We can just publish idea logs in artefacts as suggested in this > > >> manual [2]. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > For now, Inspections logs looks like this one [3]. > > >> >> > Also, would you please to take a look at inspection report and > > check > > >> if we missed smth and there are any unwanted inspection turned on. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > [1] https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/TW-58422 > > >> >> > [2] > > >> > > https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Reporting+Issues#ReportingIssues-IntelliJIDEAInspections > > >> >> > [3] > > >> > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=2538111&buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_ExcludedInspections2&tab=artifacts > > >> >> > > > >> >> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 3:19 PM Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email] > > > > > >> wrote: > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> Maxim M, do you know if we can disable inspections by wildcard? > > E.g. > > >> >> >> Android* ? > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 14:59, Andrey Mashenkov < > > >> [hidden email]>: > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Fixed memory issues with increasing heap size and forcing G1GC. > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > Do we need all these plugins loaded for inspections? > > >> >> >> > I've found a 'disable plugin' option in TC Inspections build > > >> configuration, > > >> >> >> > but it is unclear how to disable plugin correctly. > > >> >> >> > Can someone take over this? > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > 46 plugins initialized in 1031 ms > > >> >> >> > > 2018-12-13 10:55:24,875 [ 1342] INFO - > > >> llij.ide.plugins.PluginManager - > > >> >> >> > > Loaded bundled plugins: Android Support (10.2.3), Ant Support > > >> (1.0), CSS > > >> >> >> > > Support (172.4574.11), Database Tools and SQL (172.4574.11), > > >> Eclipse > > >> >> >> > > Integration (3.0), FreeMarker support (1.0), GWT Support > > (1.0), > > >> Gradle > > >> >> >> > > (172.4574.11), Groovy (9.0), Guice (8.0), HTML Tools (2.0), > > >> Hibernate > > >> >> >> > > Support (1.0), I18n for Java (172.4574.11), IDEA CORE > > >> (172.4574.11), > > >> >> >> > > IntelliLang (8.0), JBoss Seam Support (1.0), JUnit (1.0), Java > > >> EE: Bean > > >> >> >> > > Validation Support (1.1), Java EE: Contexts and Dependency > > >> Injection > > >> >> >> > (1.1), > > >> >> >> > > Java EE: EJB, JPA, Servlets (1.0), Java EE: Java Server Faces > > >> (2.2.X.), > > >> >> >> > > Java EE: Web Services (JAX-WS) (1.9), Java Server Pages (JSP) > > >> Integration > > >> >> >> > > (1.0), JavaScript Support (1.0), Kotlin > > >> (1.1.4-release-IJ2017.2-3), Maven > > >> >> >> > > Integration (172.4574.11), Persistence Frameworks Support > > >> (1.0), Plugin > > >> >> >> > > DevKit (1.0), Properties Support (172.4574.11), QuirksMode > > >> (172.4574.11), > > >> >> >> > > Spring AOP/@AspectJ (1.0), Spring Batch (1.0), Spring Data > > >> (1.0), Spring > > >> >> >> > > Integration Patterns (1.0), Spring Security (1.0), Spring > > >> Support (1.0), > > >> >> >> > > Spring Web Flow (1.0), Spring Web Services (1.0), Struts 1.x > > >> (2.0), > > >> >> >> > Struts > > >> >> >> > > 2 (1.0), TestNG-J (8.0), UI Designer (172.4574.11), Velocity > > >> support > > >> >> >> > (1.0), > > >> >> >> > > W3C Validators (2.0), WebLogic Integration (1.0), XPathView + > > >> XSLT > > >> >> >> > Support > > >> >> >> > > (4) > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > Kotlin plugins fails to start, let's disable it. > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > 2018-12-13 10:55:27,623 [ 4090] INFO - > > >> >> >> > il.indexing.FileBasedIndexImpl - Rebuild requested for index > > >> >> >> > org.jetbrains.kotlin.idea.versions.KotlinJvmMetadataVersionIndex > > >> >> >> > > java.lang.Throwable > > >> >> >> > > at > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > com.intellij.util.indexing.FileBasedIndex.requestRebuild(FileBasedIndex.java:68) > > >> >> >> > > at > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > org.jetbrains.kotlin.idea.versions.KotlinUpdatePluginComponent.initComponent(KotlinUpdatePluginComponent.kt:54) > > >> >> >> > > at > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl$ComponentConfigComponentAdapter.getComponentInstance(ComponentManagerImpl.java:492) > > >> >> >> > > at > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl.createComponents(ComponentManagerImpl.java:118) > > >> >> >> > > at > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.a(ApplicationImpl.java:462) > > >> >> >> > > at > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.createComponents(ApplicationImpl.java:466) > > >> >> >> > > at > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl.init(ComponentManagerImpl.java:102) > > >> >> >> > > at > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.load(ApplicationImpl.java:421) > > >> >> >> > > at > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.load(ApplicationImpl.java:407) > > >> >> >> > > at > > >> com.intellij.idea.IdeaApplication.run(IdeaApplication.java:203) > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 1:45 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > >> [hidden email]> wrote: > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > Sure, let's apply. I hope all TC agents may handle 4G heap. > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 12:54, Andrey Mashenkov < > > >> >> >> > [hidden email] > > >> >> >> > > >: > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > Guys, > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > I've just creates a copy of Inspections TC build task with > > GC > > >> logs > > >> >> >> > turned > > >> >> >> > > > on to check if there is any issues > > >> >> >> > > > and found Inspections task spent too much time in STW due to > > >> long Full > > >> >> >> > GC > > >> >> >> > > > pauses. > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > I've tried to increase Xmx up to 4Gb and use G1GC got 2+ > > >> times better > > >> >> >> > > > execution time down to ~15 min (~17 for 2G heap). > > >> >> >> > > > Increasing heap size only is not very helpful as it just > > >> postpone Full > > >> >> >> > GC > > >> >> >> > > > issues, but changing GC to G1GC gives noticeable result. > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > Let's apply this optimization. > > >> >> >> > > > Thoughts? > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 12:43 PM Vyacheslav Daradur < > > >> >> >> > [hidden email]> > > >> >> >> > > > wrote: > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > Hi, Maxim, Nikolay, I have the following questions > > regarding > > >> >> >> > > inspections: > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > Should 'gnite_inspections_teamcity.xml' been imported into > > >> IDEA, > > >> >> >> > since > > >> >> >> > > > > 'ignite_inspections.xml' has been removed in actual > > master? > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > Also, I've faced mismatching: if I use > > >> >> >> > > > > '@SuppressWarnings("ErrorNotRethrown")' in code, then this > > >> will be > > >> >> >> > > > > marked on TC as "Redundant suppression". If I removed this > > >> >> >> > suppression > > >> >> >> > > > > in "main" code base (not in tests) then it's fine and IDE > > >> does not > > >> >> >> > > > > mark the code by inspection. But, if I use > > >> >> >> > > > > 'GridTestUtils#assertThrows' in 'tests' code base, then > > IDE > > >> requires > > >> >> >> > > > > to suppress the inspection, if I have done it then TC > > marks > > >> this as > > >> >> >> > > > > "Redundant suppression". > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > What should I do in this case? > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 10:26 PM Andrey Mashenkov > > >> >> >> > > > > <[hidden email]> wrote: > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > Hi, > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > Have someone tried to investigate the issue related to > > >> Inspection > > >> >> >> > TC > > >> >> >> > > > task > > >> >> >> > > > > > execution time variation (from 0.5 up to 1,5 hours)? > > >> >> >> > > > > > Can we enable GC logs for this task or may be even get > > >> CPU, Disk, > > >> >> >> > > > Network > > >> >> >> > > > > > metrics? > > >> >> >> > > > > > Can someone check if there are unnecessary Idea plugins > > >> starts that > > >> >> >> > > can > > >> >> >> > > > > be > > >> >> >> > > > > > safely disabled? > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:52 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > >> [hidden email] > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > wrote: > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > I'm totally with you in this decision, let's move the > > >> file. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > вт, 27 нояб. 2018 г. в 16:24, Maxim Muzafarov < > > >> >> >> > [hidden email] > > >> >> >> > > >: > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Igniters, > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > I propose to make inspection configuration default > > on > > >> the > > >> >> >> > project > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > level. I've created a new issue [1] for it. It can > > be > > >> easily > > >> >> >> > done > > >> >> >> > > > and > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > recommend by IntelliJ documentation [2]. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Vyacheslav, > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Can you share an example of your warnings? > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Currently, we have different inspection > > >> configurations: > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > - ignite_inspections.xml - to import inspections as > > >> default and > > >> >> >> > > use > > >> >> >> > > > > it > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > daily. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > - ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml - config to run it > > >> on TC. > > >> >> >> > Only > > >> >> >> > > > > fixed > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > rules in the project code are enabled. Each of these > > >> rules are > > >> >> >> > > > marked > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > with ERROR level. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > [1] > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10422 > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > [2] > > >> https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/code-inspection.html > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 at 13:58, Nikolay Izhikov < > > >> >> >> > > [hidden email] > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > wrote: > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > Hello, Vyacheslav. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > Yes, we have. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > Maxim Muzafarov, can you fix it, please? > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г., 13:10 Vyacheslav Daradur > > >> >> >> > > > [hidden email] > > >> >> >> > > > > : > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > Guys, why we have 2 different inspection files > > in > > >> the repo? > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > idea\ignite_inspections.xml > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > idea\ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > AFAIK TeamCity is able to use the same > > inspection > > >> file with > > >> >> >> > > > IDE. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > I've imported 'idea\ignite_inspections.xml' in > > >> the IDE, but > > >> >> >> > > now > > >> >> >> > > > > see > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > inspection warnings for my PR on TC because of > > >> different > > >> >> >> > > rules. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 6:06 PM Maxim Muzafarov > > < > > >> >> >> > > > > [hidden email]> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Yakov, Dmitry, > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Which example of unsuccessful suite execution > > >> do we need? > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Does the current fail [1] in the master branch > > >> enough to > > >> >> >> > > > > configure > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > notifications by TC.Bot? > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Please consider adding more checks > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - line endings. I think we should only have > > \n > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - ensure blank line at the end of file > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me that `line endings` is easy to > > >> add, but > > >> >> >> > for > > >> >> >> > > > the > > >> >> >> > > > > > > `blank > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > line at the end` we need as special regexp. > > Can > > >> we focus > > >> >> >> > on > > >> >> >> > > > > > > built-in > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > IntelliJ inspections at first and fix others > > >> special > > >> >> >> > > further? > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >> > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 at 17:55, Maxim Muzafarov > > < > > >> >> >> > > > > [hidden email]> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters, > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Since the inspection rules are included in > > >> RunAll a few > > >> >> >> > > > > members > > >> >> >> > > > > > > of > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > the > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > community mentioned a wide distributed > > >> execution time > > >> >> >> > on > > >> >> >> > > TC > > >> >> >> > > > > > > agents: > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - 1h:27m:38s publicagent17_9094 > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - 38m:04s publicagent17_9094 > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - 33m:29s publicagent17_9094 > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - 17m:13s publicagent17_9094 > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > It seems that we should configure the > > >> resources > > >> >> >> > > > distribution > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > across TC > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > containers. Can anyone take a look at it? > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I've also prepared the short list of rules > > to > > >> work on: > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Inconsistent line separators (6 matches) > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Problematic whitespace (4 matches) > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + expression.equals("literal")' rather than > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > '"literal".equals(expression) (53 matches) > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Unnecessary 'null' check before > > 'instanceof' > > >> >> >> > expression > > >> >> >> > > > or > > >> >> >> > > > > call > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > (42 > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > matches) > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Redundant 'if' statement (69 matches) > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Redundant interface declaration (28 > > matches) > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Double negation (0 matches) > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Unnecessary code block (472 matches) > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Line is longer than allowed by code style > > >> (2614 > > >> >> >> > > matches) > > >> >> >> > > > > (Is it > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > possible to implement?) > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT? > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 23:43, Dmitriy > > Pavlov < > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > [hidden email]> > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Maxim, > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you for your efforts to make this > > >> happen. Keep > > >> >> >> > > the > > >> >> >> > > > > pace! > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please provide an example of how > > >> >> >> > Inspections > > >> >> >> > > > can > > >> >> >> > > > > > > fail, > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > so > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > I or > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > another contributor could implement > > support > > >> of these > > >> >> >> > > > > failures > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > validation in > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the Tc Bot. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 26 окт. 2018 г. в 18:27, Yakov > > Zhdanov < > > >> >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email] > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >: > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maxim, > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for response, let's do it the way > > >> you > > >> >> >> > > suggested. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please consider adding more checks > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - line endings. I think we should only > > >> have \n > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - ensure blank line in the end of file > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > All these are code reviews issues I > > >> pointed out > > >> >> >> > many > > >> >> >> > > > > times > > >> >> >> > > > > > > when > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > reviewing > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > conributions. It would be cool if we > > have > > >> TC build > > >> >> >> > > > > failing if > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > there is any. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --Yakov > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > -- > > >> >> >> > > > > > Best regards, > > >> >> >> > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > -- > > >> >> >> > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > -- > > >> >> >> > > > Best regards, > > >> >> >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > -- > > >> >> >> > Best regards, > > >> >> >> > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > -- > > >> >> > Best regards, > > >> >> > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > -- > > >> > Best regards, > > >> > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Best regards, > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > > > > > > -- > > Best regards, > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > |
|
|
Maxim,
Looks ok. Let's apply IGNITE-10682. All, Also, I'd like to publish idea.logs into artefacts by default. This will give us more details for investigation in future if any failure will occurs. It will costs 1-10 kB. On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 3:21 PM Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]> wrote: > Dmitry, > > It seems to me that we have two independent issues here. > 1. An `Unexpected error during build messages processing in TeamCity` > error message which is related to TC agent configuration. Suppose, > server.log will provide us more details about it. I have to access > there. > 2. A new set of inspection rules was introduced in 2018+ IntelliJ IDEA > and they should be disabled in our ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml > configuration file. They are not fixed in the Apache Ignite project > code yet. I've prepared the issue [1] for it. Please, take a look. > > > Andrey, > > I've fixed disabled plugins file according to your suggestions. The > issue [2] is ready. I've re-run `Excluded [Inspections] Core Debug` > suite and the log details show me that now only 3 plugins are enabled: > IDEA CORE, Maven Integration, Properties Support. It seems to me that > it's correct. > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10709 > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10682 > > On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 15:22, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > Folks, > > > > There is a strange error on TC > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=2556875&buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore > > > > It appeared after TC update to the latest version. > > > > Sincerely, > > Dmitry Pavlov > > > > пт, 14 дек. 2018 г. в 16:09, Andrey Mashenkov < > [hidden email]>: > > > > > Maxim, > > > > > > PR is incomplete. Some plugins should be disabled with different > id\name. > > > Maven plugin shouldn't be disabled as Idea Inspector use it to use > Ignite > > > project pom file. > > > > > > Please, find details in ticket. > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 12:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov < > > > [hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > > > Maxim, > > > > > > > > Thanks, I'll check PR and let you know about results. > > > > > > > > For now, Inspections task execution time looks much better (15-22 > min), > > > > but fluctuation is still noticeable. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 11:13 AM Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Andrey, > > > >> > > > >> Thanks! I've consulted with the IntelliJ IDEA source code and found > > > >> how this disabled plugins file should look like. I've created a new > > > >> issue [1] and prepared PR [2] with the set of disabled plugins > (maybe > > > >> not complete set). I don't have access to change corresponding > > > >> `~Excluded [Inspections] Core Debug` test suite properties. > > > >> Can we test this PR? > > > >> > > > >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10682 > > > >> [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5666 > > > >> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 17:35, Andrey Mashenkov > > > >> <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> > Maxim, > > > >> > > > > >> > Idea has a file in config directory ./config/disabled_plugins.txt > , > > > you > > > >> can easily find it at you local machine. > > > >> > Teamcity Inspections runner has an option "Disabled plugins" where > > > >> disabled_plugins.txt file content can be set. > > > >> > > > > >> > So, looks like we can disable useless plugins. > > > >> > But I'm not expert and can't suggest changes we can safely apply. > > > >> > > > > >> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 4:59 PM Maxim Muzafarov < > [hidden email]> > > > >> wrote: > > > >> >> > > > >> >> Andrey, > > > >> >> > > > >> >> Thank you for solving this issue with GC pauses! I've checked the > > > >> >> given report. The inspections configuration is correct, but it > seems > > > >> >> to me that we have enabled by default rules of included plugins > (for > > > >> >> instance, KotlinInternalInJava in the report is enabled). > > > >> >> > > > >> >> Can you share more details about `disable plugin` option you > found? > > > >> >> > > > >> >> I see that idea instance starts with the default > -Didea.plugins.path > > > >> >> system property, can we change it so the plugins will be not > loaded > > > by > > > >> >> default? > > > >> >> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 15:45, Andrey Mashenkov > > > >> >> <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > Maxim, > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > It looks like we can't make logs more verbose due to possible > bug, > > > >> I've create a ticket in Jetbrains Jira [1]. > > > >> >> > We can just publish idea logs in artefacts as suggested in this > > > >> manual [2]. > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > For now, Inspections logs looks like this one [3]. > > > >> >> > Also, would you please to take a look at inspection report and > > > check > > > >> if we missed smth and there are any unwanted inspection turned on. > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > [1] https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/TW-58422 > > > >> >> > [2] > > > >> > > > > https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Reporting+Issues#ReportingIssues-IntelliJIDEAInspections > > > >> >> > [3] > > > >> > > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=2538111&buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_ExcludedInspections2&tab=artifacts > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 3:19 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > [hidden email] > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> Maxim M, do you know if we can disable inspections by > wildcard? > > > E.g. > > > >> >> >> Android* ? > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 14:59, Andrey Mashenkov < > > > >> [hidden email]>: > > > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > Fixed memory issues with increasing heap size and forcing > G1GC. > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > Do we need all these plugins loaded for inspections? > > > >> >> >> > I've found a 'disable plugin' option in TC Inspections build > > > >> configuration, > > > >> >> >> > but it is unclear how to disable plugin correctly. > > > >> >> >> > Can someone take over this? > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > 46 plugins initialized in 1031 ms > > > >> >> >> > > 2018-12-13 10:55:24,875 [ 1342] INFO - > > > >> llij.ide.plugins.PluginManager - > > > >> >> >> > > Loaded bundled plugins: Android Support (10.2.3), Ant > Support > > > >> (1.0), CSS > > > >> >> >> > > Support (172.4574.11), Database Tools and SQL > (172.4574.11), > > > >> Eclipse > > > >> >> >> > > Integration (3.0), FreeMarker support (1.0), GWT Support > > > (1.0), > > > >> Gradle > > > >> >> >> > > (172.4574.11), Groovy (9.0), Guice (8.0), HTML Tools > (2.0), > > > >> Hibernate > > > >> >> >> > > Support (1.0), I18n for Java (172.4574.11), IDEA CORE > > > >> (172.4574.11), > > > >> >> >> > > IntelliLang (8.0), JBoss Seam Support (1.0), JUnit (1.0), > Java > > > >> EE: Bean > > > >> >> >> > > Validation Support (1.1), Java EE: Contexts and Dependency > > > >> Injection > > > >> >> >> > (1.1), > > > >> >> >> > > Java EE: EJB, JPA, Servlets (1.0), Java EE: Java Server > Faces > > > >> (2.2.X.), > > > >> >> >> > > Java EE: Web Services (JAX-WS) (1.9), Java Server Pages > (JSP) > > > >> Integration > > > >> >> >> > > (1.0), JavaScript Support (1.0), Kotlin > > > >> (1.1.4-release-IJ2017.2-3), Maven > > > >> >> >> > > Integration (172.4574.11), Persistence Frameworks Support > > > >> (1.0), Plugin > > > >> >> >> > > DevKit (1.0), Properties Support (172.4574.11), QuirksMode > > > >> (172.4574.11), > > > >> >> >> > > Spring AOP/@AspectJ (1.0), Spring Batch (1.0), Spring Data > > > >> (1.0), Spring > > > >> >> >> > > Integration Patterns (1.0), Spring Security (1.0), Spring > > > >> Support (1.0), > > > >> >> >> > > Spring Web Flow (1.0), Spring Web Services (1.0), Struts > 1.x > > > >> (2.0), > > > >> >> >> > Struts > > > >> >> >> > > 2 (1.0), TestNG-J (8.0), UI Designer (172.4574.11), > Velocity > > > >> support > > > >> >> >> > (1.0), > > > >> >> >> > > W3C Validators (2.0), WebLogic Integration (1.0), > XPathView + > > > >> XSLT > > > >> >> >> > Support > > > >> >> >> > > (4) > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > Kotlin plugins fails to start, let's disable it. > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > 2018-12-13 10:55:27,623 [ 4090] INFO - > > > >> >> >> > il.indexing.FileBasedIndexImpl - Rebuild requested for index > > > >> >> >> > > org.jetbrains.kotlin.idea.versions.KotlinJvmMetadataVersionIndex > > > >> >> >> > > java.lang.Throwable > > > >> >> >> > > at > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > > > com.intellij.util.indexing.FileBasedIndex.requestRebuild(FileBasedIndex.java:68) > > > >> >> >> > > at > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > > > org.jetbrains.kotlin.idea.versions.KotlinUpdatePluginComponent.initComponent(KotlinUpdatePluginComponent.kt:54) > > > >> >> >> > > at > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > > > com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl$ComponentConfigComponentAdapter.getComponentInstance(ComponentManagerImpl.java:492) > > > >> >> >> > > at > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > > > com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl.createComponents(ComponentManagerImpl.java:118) > > > >> >> >> > > at > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > > > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.a(ApplicationImpl.java:462) > > > >> >> >> > > at > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > > > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.createComponents(ApplicationImpl.java:466) > > > >> >> >> > > at > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > > > com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl.init(ComponentManagerImpl.java:102) > > > >> >> >> > > at > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > > > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.load(ApplicationImpl.java:421) > > > >> >> >> > > at > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > > > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.load(ApplicationImpl.java:407) > > > >> >> >> > > at > > > >> com.intellij.idea.IdeaApplication.run(IdeaApplication.java:203) > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 1:45 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > >> [hidden email]> wrote: > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > Sure, let's apply. I hope all TC agents may handle 4G > heap. > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 12:54, Andrey Mashenkov < > > > >> >> >> > [hidden email] > > > >> >> >> > > >: > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > Guys, > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > I've just creates a copy of Inspections TC build task > with > > > GC > > > >> logs > > > >> >> >> > turned > > > >> >> >> > > > on to check if there is any issues > > > >> >> >> > > > and found Inspections task spent too much time in STW > due to > > > >> long Full > > > >> >> >> > GC > > > >> >> >> > > > pauses. > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > I've tried to increase Xmx up to 4Gb and use G1GC got 2+ > > > >> times better > > > >> >> >> > > > execution time down to ~15 min (~17 for 2G heap). > > > >> >> >> > > > Increasing heap size only is not very helpful as it just > > > >> postpone Full > > > >> >> >> > GC > > > >> >> >> > > > issues, but changing GC to G1GC gives noticeable result. > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > Let's apply this optimization. > > > >> >> >> > > > Thoughts? > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 12:43 PM Vyacheslav Daradur < > > > >> >> >> > [hidden email]> > > > >> >> >> > > > wrote: > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > Hi, Maxim, Nikolay, I have the following questions > > > regarding > > > >> >> >> > > inspections: > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > Should 'gnite_inspections_teamcity.xml' been imported > into > > > >> IDEA, > > > >> >> >> > since > > > >> >> >> > > > > 'ignite_inspections.xml' has been removed in actual > > > master? > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > Also, I've faced mismatching: if I use > > > >> >> >> > > > > '@SuppressWarnings("ErrorNotRethrown")' in code, then > this > > > >> will be > > > >> >> >> > > > > marked on TC as "Redundant suppression". If I removed > this > > > >> >> >> > suppression > > > >> >> >> > > > > in "main" code base (not in tests) then it's fine and > IDE > > > >> does not > > > >> >> >> > > > > mark the code by inspection. But, if I use > > > >> >> >> > > > > 'GridTestUtils#assertThrows' in 'tests' code base, > then > > > IDE > > > >> requires > > > >> >> >> > > > > to suppress the inspection, if I have done it then TC > > > marks > > > >> this as > > > >> >> >> > > > > "Redundant suppression". > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > What should I do in this case? > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 10:26 PM Andrey Mashenkov > > > >> >> >> > > > > <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > Hi, > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > Have someone tried to investigate the issue related > to > > > >> Inspection > > > >> >> >> > TC > > > >> >> >> > > > task > > > >> >> >> > > > > > execution time variation (from 0.5 up to 1,5 hours)? > > > >> >> >> > > > > > Can we enable GC logs for this task or may be even > get > > > >> CPU, Disk, > > > >> >> >> > > > Network > > > >> >> >> > > > > > metrics? > > > >> >> >> > > > > > Can someone check if there are unnecessary Idea > plugins > > > >> starts that > > > >> >> >> > > can > > > >> >> >> > > > > be > > > >> >> >> > > > > > safely disabled? > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:52 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > >> [hidden email] > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > wrote: > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > I'm totally with you in this decision, let's move > the > > > >> file. > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > вт, 27 нояб. 2018 г. в 16:24, Maxim Muzafarov < > > > >> >> >> > [hidden email] > > > >> >> >> > > >: > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Igniters, > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > I propose to make inspection configuration > default > > > on > > > >> the > > > >> >> >> > project > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > level. I've created a new issue [1] for it. It > can > > > be > > > >> easily > > > >> >> >> > done > > > >> >> >> > > > and > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > recommend by IntelliJ documentation [2]. > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Vyacheslav, > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Can you share an example of your warnings? > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Currently, we have different inspection > > > >> configurations: > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > - ignite_inspections.xml - to import > inspections as > > > >> default and > > > >> >> >> > > use > > > >> >> >> > > > > it > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > daily. > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > - ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml - config to > run it > > > >> on TC. > > > >> >> >> > Only > > > >> >> >> > > > > fixed > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > rules in the project code are enabled. Each of > these > > > >> rules are > > > >> >> >> > > > marked > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > with ERROR level. > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > [1] > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10422 > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > [2] > > > >> https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/code-inspection.html > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 at 13:58, Nikolay Izhikov < > > > >> >> >> > > [hidden email] > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > wrote: > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > Hello, Vyacheslav. > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > Yes, we have. > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > Maxim Muzafarov, can you fix it, please? > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г., 13:10 Vyacheslav Daradur > > > >> >> >> > > > [hidden email] > > > >> >> >> > > > > : > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > Guys, why we have 2 different inspection > files > > > in > > > >> the repo? > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > idea\ignite_inspections.xml > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > idea\ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > AFAIK TeamCity is able to use the same > > > inspection > > > >> file with > > > >> >> >> > > > IDE. > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > I've imported 'idea\ignite_inspections.xml' > in > > > >> the IDE, but > > > >> >> >> > > now > > > >> >> >> > > > > see > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > inspection warnings for my PR on TC because > of > > > >> different > > > >> >> >> > > rules. > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 6:06 PM Maxim > Muzafarov > > > < > > > >> >> >> > > > > [hidden email]> > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Yakov, Dmitry, > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Which example of unsuccessful suite > execution > > > >> do we need? > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Does the current fail [1] in the master > branch > > > >> enough to > > > >> >> >> > > > > configure > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > notifications by TC.Bot? > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Please consider adding more checks > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - line endings. I think we should only > have > > > \n > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - ensure blank line at the end of file > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me that `line endings` is > easy to > > > >> add, but > > > >> >> >> > for > > > >> >> >> > > > the > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > `blank > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > line at the end` we need as special > regexp. > > > Can > > > >> we focus > > > >> >> >> > on > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > built-in > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > IntelliJ inspections at first and fix > others > > > >> special > > > >> >> >> > > further? > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> > > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 at 17:55, Maxim > Muzafarov > > > < > > > >> >> >> > > > > [hidden email]> > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters, > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Since the inspection rules are included > in > > > >> RunAll a few > > > >> >> >> > > > > members > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > of > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > the > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > community mentioned a wide distributed > > > >> execution time > > > >> >> >> > on > > > >> >> >> > > TC > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > agents: > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - 1h:27m:38s publicagent17_9094 > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - 38m:04s publicagent17_9094 > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - 33m:29s publicagent17_9094 > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - 17m:13s publicagent17_9094 > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > It seems that we should configure the > > > >> resources > > > >> >> >> > > > distribution > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > across TC > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > containers. Can anyone take a look at > it? > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I've also prepared the short list of > rules > > > to > > > >> work on: > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Inconsistent line separators (6 > matches) > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Problematic whitespace (4 matches) > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + expression.equals("literal")' rather > than > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > '"literal".equals(expression) (53 > matches) > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Unnecessary 'null' check before > > > 'instanceof' > > > >> >> >> > expression > > > >> >> >> > > > or > > > >> >> >> > > > > call > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > (42 > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > matches) > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Redundant 'if' statement (69 matches) > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Redundant interface declaration (28 > > > matches) > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Double negation (0 matches) > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Unnecessary code block (472 matches) > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Line is longer than allowed by code > style > > > >> (2614 > > > >> >> >> > > matches) > > > >> >> >> > > > > (Is it > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > possible to implement?) > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT? > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 23:43, Dmitriy > > > Pavlov < > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > [hidden email]> > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Maxim, > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you for your efforts to make > this > > > >> happen. Keep > > > >> >> >> > > the > > > >> >> >> > > > > pace! > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please provide an example > of how > > > >> >> >> > Inspections > > > >> >> >> > > > can > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > fail, > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > so > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > I or > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > another contributor could implement > > > support > > > >> of these > > > >> >> >> > > > > failures > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > validation in > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the Tc Bot. > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 26 окт. 2018 г. в 18:27, Yakov > > > Zhdanov < > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email] > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >: > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maxim, > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for response, let's do it > the way > > > >> you > > > >> >> >> > > suggested. > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please consider adding more checks > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - line endings. I think we should > only > > > >> have \n > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - ensure blank line in the end of > file > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > All these are code reviews issues I > > > >> pointed out > > > >> >> >> > many > > > >> >> >> > > > > times > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > when > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > reviewing > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > conributions. It would be cool if we > > > have > > > >> TC build > > > >> >> >> > > > > failing if > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > there is any. > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --Yakov > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > -- > > > >> >> >> > > > > > Best regards, > > > >> >> >> > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > -- > > > >> >> >> > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > -- > > > >> >> >> > > > Best regards, > > > >> >> >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > -- > > > >> >> >> > Best regards, > > > >> >> >> > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > -- > > > >> >> > Best regards, > > > >> >> > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > -- > > > >> > Best regards, > > > >> > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Best regards, > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Best regards, > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > -- Best regards, Andrey V. Mashenkov |
|
|
Both patches were applied. Maxim, thank you!
What about 1. An `Unexpected error during build messages processing in TeamCity`, what can we do as the next step to fix it? Sincerely, Dmitriy Pavlov пн, 17 дек. 2018 г. в 18:31, Andrey Mashenkov <[hidden email]>: > Maxim, > > Looks ok. Let's apply IGNITE-10682. > > All, > > Also, I'd like to publish idea.logs into artefacts by default. > This will give us more details for investigation in future if any failure > will occurs. > It will costs 1-10 kB. > > On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 3:21 PM Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]> > wrote: > > > Dmitry, > > > > It seems to me that we have two independent issues here. > > 1. An `Unexpected error during build messages processing in TeamCity` > > error message which is related to TC agent configuration. Suppose, > > server.log will provide us more details about it. I have to access > > there. > > 2. A new set of inspection rules was introduced in 2018+ IntelliJ IDEA > > and they should be disabled in our ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml > > configuration file. They are not fixed in the Apache Ignite project > > code yet. I've prepared the issue [1] for it. Please, take a look. > > > > > > Andrey, > > > > I've fixed disabled plugins file according to your suggestions. The > > issue [2] is ready. I've re-run `Excluded [Inspections] Core Debug` > > suite and the log details show me that now only 3 plugins are enabled: > > IDEA CORE, Maven Integration, Properties Support. It seems to me that > > it's correct. > > > > [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10709 > > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10682 > > > > On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 15:22, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > > Folks, > > > > > > There is a strange error on TC > > > > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=2556875&buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore > > > > > > It appeared after TC update to the latest version. > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > Dmitry Pavlov > > > > > > пт, 14 дек. 2018 г. в 16:09, Andrey Mashenkov < > > [hidden email]>: > > > > > > > Maxim, > > > > > > > > PR is incomplete. Some plugins should be disabled with different > > id\name. > > > > Maven plugin shouldn't be disabled as Idea Inspector use it to use > > Ignite > > > > project pom file. > > > > > > > > Please, find details in ticket. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 12:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov < > > > > [hidden email]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Maxim, > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, I'll check PR and let you know about results. > > > > > > > > > > For now, Inspections task execution time looks much better (15-22 > > min), > > > > > but fluctuation is still noticeable. > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 11:13 AM Maxim Muzafarov < > [hidden email] > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Andrey, > > > > >> > > > > >> Thanks! I've consulted with the IntelliJ IDEA source code and > found > > > > >> how this disabled plugins file should look like. I've created a > new > > > > >> issue [1] and prepared PR [2] with the set of disabled plugins > > (maybe > > > > >> not complete set). I don't have access to change corresponding > > > > >> `~Excluded [Inspections] Core Debug` test suite properties. > > > > >> Can we test this PR? > > > > >> > > > > >> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10682 > > > > >> [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5666 > > > > >> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 17:35, Andrey Mashenkov > > > > >> <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Maxim, > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Idea has a file in config directory > ./config/disabled_plugins.txt > > , > > > > you > > > > >> can easily find it at you local machine. > > > > >> > Teamcity Inspections runner has an option "Disabled plugins" > where > > > > >> disabled_plugins.txt file content can be set. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > So, looks like we can disable useless plugins. > > > > >> > But I'm not expert and can't suggest changes we can safely > apply. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 4:59 PM Maxim Muzafarov < > > [hidden email]> > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> Andrey, > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> Thank you for solving this issue with GC pauses! I've checked > the > > > > >> >> given report. The inspections configuration is correct, but it > > seems > > > > >> >> to me that we have enabled by default rules of included plugins > > (for > > > > >> >> instance, KotlinInternalInJava in the report is enabled). > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> Can you share more details about `disable plugin` option you > > found? > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> I see that idea instance starts with the default > > -Didea.plugins.path > > > > >> >> system property, can we change it so the plugins will be not > > loaded > > > > by > > > > >> >> default? > > > > >> >> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 15:45, Andrey Mashenkov > > > > >> >> <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > Maxim, > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > It looks like we can't make logs more verbose due to possible > > bug, > > > > >> I've create a ticket in Jetbrains Jira [1]. > > > > >> >> > We can just publish idea logs in artefacts as suggested in > this > > > > >> manual [2]. > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > For now, Inspections logs looks like this one [3]. > > > > >> >> > Also, would you please to take a look at inspection report > and > > > > check > > > > >> if we missed smth and there are any unwanted inspection turned on. > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > [1] https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/TW-58422 > > > > >> >> > [2] > > > > >> > > > > > > > https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Reporting+Issues#ReportingIssues-IntelliJIDEAInspections > > > > >> >> > [3] > > > > >> > > > > > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=2538111&buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_ExcludedInspections2&tab=artifacts > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 3:19 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > [hidden email] > > > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> Maxim M, do you know if we can disable inspections by > > wildcard? > > > > E.g. > > > > >> >> >> Android* ? > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 14:59, Andrey Mashenkov < > > > > >> [hidden email]>: > > > > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > Fixed memory issues with increasing heap size and forcing > > G1GC. > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > Do we need all these plugins loaded for inspections? > > > > >> >> >> > I've found a 'disable plugin' option in TC Inspections > build > > > > >> configuration, > > > > >> >> >> > but it is unclear how to disable plugin correctly. > > > > >> >> >> > Can someone take over this? > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > 46 plugins initialized in 1031 ms > > > > >> >> >> > > 2018-12-13 10:55:24,875 [ 1342] INFO - > > > > >> llij.ide.plugins.PluginManager - > > > > >> >> >> > > Loaded bundled plugins: Android Support (10.2.3), Ant > > Support > > > > >> (1.0), CSS > > > > >> >> >> > > Support (172.4574.11), Database Tools and SQL > > (172.4574.11), > > > > >> Eclipse > > > > >> >> >> > > Integration (3.0), FreeMarker support (1.0), GWT Support > > > > (1.0), > > > > >> Gradle > > > > >> >> >> > > (172.4574.11), Groovy (9.0), Guice (8.0), HTML Tools > > (2.0), > > > > >> Hibernate > > > > >> >> >> > > Support (1.0), I18n for Java (172.4574.11), IDEA CORE > > > > >> (172.4574.11), > > > > >> >> >> > > IntelliLang (8.0), JBoss Seam Support (1.0), JUnit > (1.0), > > Java > > > > >> EE: Bean > > > > >> >> >> > > Validation Support (1.1), Java EE: Contexts and > Dependency > > > > >> Injection > > > > >> >> >> > (1.1), > > > > >> >> >> > > Java EE: EJB, JPA, Servlets (1.0), Java EE: Java Server > > Faces > > > > >> (2.2.X.), > > > > >> >> >> > > Java EE: Web Services (JAX-WS) (1.9), Java Server Pages > > (JSP) > > > > >> Integration > > > > >> >> >> > > (1.0), JavaScript Support (1.0), Kotlin > > > > >> (1.1.4-release-IJ2017.2-3), Maven > > > > >> >> >> > > Integration (172.4574.11), Persistence Frameworks > Support > > > > >> (1.0), Plugin > > > > >> >> >> > > DevKit (1.0), Properties Support (172.4574.11), > QuirksMode > > > > >> (172.4574.11), > > > > >> >> >> > > Spring AOP/@AspectJ (1.0), Spring Batch (1.0), Spring > Data > > > > >> (1.0), Spring > > > > >> >> >> > > Integration Patterns (1.0), Spring Security (1.0), > Spring > > > > >> Support (1.0), > > > > >> >> >> > > Spring Web Flow (1.0), Spring Web Services (1.0), Struts > > 1.x > > > > >> (2.0), > > > > >> >> >> > Struts > > > > >> >> >> > > 2 (1.0), TestNG-J (8.0), UI Designer (172.4574.11), > > Velocity > > > > >> support > > > > >> >> >> > (1.0), > > > > >> >> >> > > W3C Validators (2.0), WebLogic Integration (1.0), > > XPathView + > > > > >> XSLT > > > > >> >> >> > Support > > > > >> >> >> > > (4) > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > Kotlin plugins fails to start, let's disable it. > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > 2018-12-13 10:55:27,623 [ 4090] INFO - > > > > >> >> >> > il.indexing.FileBasedIndexImpl - Rebuild requested for > index > > > > >> >> >> > > > org.jetbrains.kotlin.idea.versions.KotlinJvmMetadataVersionIndex > > > > >> >> >> > > java.lang.Throwable > > > > >> >> >> > > at > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > com.intellij.util.indexing.FileBasedIndex.requestRebuild(FileBasedIndex.java:68) > > > > >> >> >> > > at > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > org.jetbrains.kotlin.idea.versions.KotlinUpdatePluginComponent.initComponent(KotlinUpdatePluginComponent.kt:54) > > > > >> >> >> > > at > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl$ComponentConfigComponentAdapter.getComponentInstance(ComponentManagerImpl.java:492) > > > > >> >> >> > > at > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl.createComponents(ComponentManagerImpl.java:118) > > > > >> >> >> > > at > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.a(ApplicationImpl.java:462) > > > > >> >> >> > > at > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.createComponents(ApplicationImpl.java:466) > > > > >> >> >> > > at > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl.init(ComponentManagerImpl.java:102) > > > > >> >> >> > > at > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.load(ApplicationImpl.java:421) > > > > >> >> >> > > at > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.load(ApplicationImpl.java:407) > > > > >> >> >> > > at > > > > >> com.intellij.idea.IdeaApplication.run(IdeaApplication.java:203) > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 1:45 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > > >> [hidden email]> wrote: > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > Sure, let's apply. I hope all TC agents may handle 4G > > heap. > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 12:54, Andrey Mashenkov < > > > > >> >> >> > [hidden email] > > > > >> >> >> > > >: > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > Guys, > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > I've just creates a copy of Inspections TC build task > > with > > > > GC > > > > >> logs > > > > >> >> >> > turned > > > > >> >> >> > > > on to check if there is any issues > > > > >> >> >> > > > and found Inspections task spent too much time in STW > > due to > > > > >> long Full > > > > >> >> >> > GC > > > > >> >> >> > > > pauses. > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > I've tried to increase Xmx up to 4Gb and use G1GC got > 2+ > > > > >> times better > > > > >> >> >> > > > execution time down to ~15 min (~17 for 2G heap). > > > > >> >> >> > > > Increasing heap size only is not very helpful as it > just > > > > >> postpone Full > > > > >> >> >> > GC > > > > >> >> >> > > > issues, but changing GC to G1GC gives noticeable > result. > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > Let's apply this optimization. > > > > >> >> >> > > > Thoughts? > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 12:43 PM Vyacheslav Daradur < > > > > >> >> >> > [hidden email]> > > > > >> >> >> > > > wrote: > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > Hi, Maxim, Nikolay, I have the following questions > > > > regarding > > > > >> >> >> > > inspections: > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > Should 'gnite_inspections_teamcity.xml' been > imported > > into > > > > >> IDEA, > > > > >> >> >> > since > > > > >> >> >> > > > > 'ignite_inspections.xml' has been removed in actual > > > > master? > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > Also, I've faced mismatching: if I use > > > > >> >> >> > > > > '@SuppressWarnings("ErrorNotRethrown")' in code, > then > > this > > > > >> will be > > > > >> >> >> > > > > marked on TC as "Redundant suppression". If I > removed > > this > > > > >> >> >> > suppression > > > > >> >> >> > > > > in "main" code base (not in tests) then it's fine > and > > IDE > > > > >> does not > > > > >> >> >> > > > > mark the code by inspection. But, if I use > > > > >> >> >> > > > > 'GridTestUtils#assertThrows' in 'tests' code base, > > then > > > > IDE > > > > >> requires > > > > >> >> >> > > > > to suppress the inspection, if I have done it then > TC > > > > marks > > > > >> this as > > > > >> >> >> > > > > "Redundant suppression". > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > What should I do in this case? > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 10:26 PM Andrey Mashenkov > > > > >> >> >> > > > > <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > Hi, > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > Have someone tried to investigate the issue > related > > to > > > > >> Inspection > > > > >> >> >> > TC > > > > >> >> >> > > > task > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > execution time variation (from 0.5 up to 1,5 > hours)? > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > Can we enable GC logs for this task or may be even > > get > > > > >> CPU, Disk, > > > > >> >> >> > > > Network > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > metrics? > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > Can someone check if there are unnecessary Idea > > plugins > > > > >> starts that > > > > >> >> >> > > can > > > > >> >> >> > > > > be > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > safely disabled? > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:52 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > > >> [hidden email] > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > wrote: > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > I'm totally with you in this decision, let's > move > > the > > > > >> file. > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > вт, 27 нояб. 2018 г. в 16:24, Maxim Muzafarov < > > > > >> >> >> > [hidden email] > > > > >> >> >> > > >: > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > I propose to make inspection configuration > > default > > > > on > > > > >> the > > > > >> >> >> > project > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > level. I've created a new issue [1] for it. It > > can > > > > be > > > > >> easily > > > > >> >> >> > done > > > > >> >> >> > > > and > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > recommend by IntelliJ documentation [2]. > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Vyacheslav, > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Can you share an example of your warnings? > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > Currently, we have different inspection > > > > >> configurations: > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > - ignite_inspections.xml - to import > > inspections as > > > > >> default and > > > > >> >> >> > > use > > > > >> >> >> > > > > it > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > daily. > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > - ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml - config to > > run it > > > > >> on TC. > > > > >> >> >> > Only > > > > >> >> >> > > > > fixed > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > rules in the project code are enabled. Each of > > these > > > > >> rules are > > > > >> >> >> > > > marked > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > with ERROR level. > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > [1] > > > > >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10422 > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > [2] > > > > >> https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/code-inspection.html > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 at 13:58, Nikolay Izhikov > < > > > > >> >> >> > > [hidden email] > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > Hello, Vyacheslav. > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > Yes, we have. > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > Maxim Muzafarov, can you fix it, please? > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г., 13:10 Vyacheslav > Daradur > > > > >> >> >> > > > [hidden email] > > > > >> >> >> > > > > : > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > Guys, why we have 2 different inspection > > files > > > > in > > > > >> the repo? > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > idea\ignite_inspections.xml > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > idea\ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > AFAIK TeamCity is able to use the same > > > > inspection > > > > >> file with > > > > >> >> >> > > > IDE. > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > I've imported > 'idea\ignite_inspections.xml' > > in > > > > >> the IDE, but > > > > >> >> >> > > now > > > > >> >> >> > > > > see > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > inspection warnings for my PR on TC > because > > of > > > > >> different > > > > >> >> >> > > rules. > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 6:06 PM Maxim > > Muzafarov > > > > < > > > > >> >> >> > > > > [hidden email]> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Yakov, Dmitry, > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Which example of unsuccessful suite > > execution > > > > >> do we need? > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Does the current fail [1] in the master > > branch > > > > >> enough to > > > > >> >> >> > > > > configure > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > notifications by TC.Bot? > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Please consider adding more checks > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - line endings. I think we should only > > have > > > > \n > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - ensure blank line at the end of file > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > It seems to me that `line endings` is > > easy to > > > > >> add, but > > > > >> >> >> > for > > > > >> >> >> > > > the > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > `blank > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > line at the end` we need as special > > regexp. > > > > Can > > > > >> we focus > > > > >> >> >> > on > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > built-in > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > IntelliJ inspections at first and fix > > others > > > > >> special > > > > >> >> >> > > further? > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > [1] > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> > > > > > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 at 17:55, Maxim > > Muzafarov > > > > < > > > > >> >> >> > > > > [hidden email]> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Igniters, > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > Since the inspection rules are > included > > in > > > > >> RunAll a few > > > > >> >> >> > > > > members > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > of > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > the > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > community mentioned a wide distributed > > > > >> execution time > > > > >> >> >> > on > > > > >> >> >> > > TC > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > agents: > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - 1h:27m:38s publicagent17_9094 > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - 38m:04s publicagent17_9094 > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - 33m:29s publicagent17_9094 > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > - 17m:13s publicagent17_9094 > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > It seems that we should configure the > > > > >> resources > > > > >> >> >> > > > distribution > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > across TC > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > containers. Can anyone take a look at > > it? > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > I've also prepared the short list of > > rules > > > > to > > > > >> work on: > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Inconsistent line separators (6 > > matches) > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Problematic whitespace (4 matches) > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + expression.equals("literal")' rather > > than > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > '"literal".equals(expression) (53 > > matches) > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Unnecessary 'null' check before > > > > 'instanceof' > > > > >> >> >> > expression > > > > >> >> >> > > > or > > > > >> >> >> > > > > call > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > (42 > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > matches) > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Redundant 'if' statement (69 > matches) > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Redundant interface declaration (28 > > > > matches) > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Double negation (0 matches) > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Unnecessary code block (472 matches) > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > + Line is longer than allowed by code > > style > > > > >> (2614 > > > > >> >> >> > > matches) > > > > >> >> >> > > > > (Is it > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > possible to implement?) > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > WDYT? > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 23:43, Dmitriy > > > > Pavlov < > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > [hidden email]> > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Maxim, > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > thank you for your efforts to make > > this > > > > >> happen. Keep > > > > >> >> >> > > the > > > > >> >> >> > > > > pace! > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Could you please provide an example > > of how > > > > >> >> >> > Inspections > > > > >> >> >> > > > can > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > fail, > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > so > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > I or > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > another contributor could implement > > > > support > > > > >> of these > > > > >> >> >> > > > > failures > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > validation in > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > the Tc Bot. > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sincerely, > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dmitriy Pavlov > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > пт, 26 окт. 2018 г. в 18:27, Yakov > > > > Zhdanov < > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > [hidden email] > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >: > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maxim, > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for response, let's do it > > the way > > > > >> you > > > > >> >> >> > > suggested. > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please consider adding more checks > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - line endings. I think we should > > only > > > > >> have \n > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > - ensure blank line in the end of > > file > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > All these are code reviews issues > I > > > > >> pointed out > > > > >> >> >> > many > > > > >> >> >> > > > > times > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > when > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > reviewing > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > conributions. It would be cool if > we > > > > have > > > > >> TC build > > > > >> >> >> > > > > failing if > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > there is any. > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > --Yakov > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > -- > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > Best regards, > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > -- > > > > >> >> >> > > > > Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > -- > > > > >> >> >> > > > Best regards, > > > > >> >> >> > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > -- > > > > >> >> >> > Best regards, > > > > >> >> >> > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > -- > > > > >> >> > Best regards, > > > > >> >> > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > -- > > > > >> > Best regards, > > > > >> > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Best regards, > > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Best regards, > > > > Andrey V. Mashenkov > > > > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Andrey V. Mashenkov > |
|
Investigating problem, stand by.
> On 18 Dec 2018, at 19:41, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Both patches were applied. Maxim, thank you! > > What about 1. An `Unexpected error during build messages processing in > TeamCity`, what can we do as the next step to fix it? > > Sincerely, > Dmitriy Pavlov > > пн, 17 дек. 2018 г. в 18:31, Andrey Mashenkov <[hidden email]>: > >> Maxim, >> >> Looks ok. Let's apply IGNITE-10682. >> >> All, >> >> Also, I'd like to publish idea.logs into artefacts by default. >> This will give us more details for investigation in future if any failure >> will occurs. >> It will costs 1-10 kB. >> >> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 3:21 PM Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]> >> wrote: >> >>> Dmitry, >>> >>> It seems to me that we have two independent issues here. >>> 1. An `Unexpected error during build messages processing in TeamCity` >>> error message which is related to TC agent configuration. Suppose, >>> server.log will provide us more details about it. I have to access >>> there. >>> 2. A new set of inspection rules was introduced in 2018+ IntelliJ IDEA >>> and they should be disabled in our ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml >>> configuration file. They are not fixed in the Apache Ignite project >>> code yet. I've prepared the issue [1] for it. Please, take a look. >>> >>> >>> Andrey, >>> >>> I've fixed disabled plugins file according to your suggestions. The >>> issue [2] is ready. I've re-run `Excluded [Inspections] Core Debug` >>> suite and the log details show me that now only 3 plugins are enabled: >>> IDEA CORE, Maven Integration, Properties Support. It seems to me that >>> it's correct. >>> >>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10709 >>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10682 >>> >>> On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 15:22, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Folks, >>>> >>>> There is a strange error on TC >>>> >>> >> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=2556875&buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore >>>> >>>> It appeared after TC update to the latest version. >>>> >>>> Sincerely, >>>> Dmitry Pavlov >>>> >>>> пт, 14 дек. 2018 г. в 16:09, Andrey Mashenkov < >>> [hidden email]>: >>>> >>>>> Maxim, >>>>> >>>>> PR is incomplete. Some plugins should be disabled with different >>> id\name. >>>>> Maven plugin shouldn't be disabled as Idea Inspector use it to use >>> Ignite >>>>> project pom file. >>>>> >>>>> Please, find details in ticket. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 12:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov < >>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Maxim, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks, I'll check PR and let you know about results. >>>>>> >>>>>> For now, Inspections task execution time looks much better (15-22 >>> min), >>>>>> but fluctuation is still noticeable. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 11:13 AM Maxim Muzafarov < >> [hidden email] >>>> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Andrey, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks! I've consulted with the IntelliJ IDEA source code and >> found >>>>>>> how this disabled plugins file should look like. I've created a >> new >>>>>>> issue [1] and prepared PR [2] with the set of disabled plugins >>> (maybe >>>>>>> not complete set). I don't have access to change corresponding >>>>>>> `~Excluded [Inspections] Core Debug` test suite properties. >>>>>>> Can we test this PR? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10682 >>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5666 >>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 17:35, Andrey Mashenkov >>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Maxim, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Idea has a file in config directory >> ./config/disabled_plugins.txt >>> , >>>>> you >>>>>>> can easily find it at you local machine. >>>>>>>> Teamcity Inspections runner has an option "Disabled plugins" >> where >>>>>>> disabled_plugins.txt file content can be set. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So, looks like we can disable useless plugins. >>>>>>>> But I'm not expert and can't suggest changes we can safely >> apply. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 4:59 PM Maxim Muzafarov < >>> [hidden email]> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Andrey, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thank you for solving this issue with GC pauses! I've checked >> the >>>>>>>>> given report. The inspections configuration is correct, but it >>> seems >>>>>>>>> to me that we have enabled by default rules of included plugins >>> (for >>>>>>>>> instance, KotlinInternalInJava in the report is enabled). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Can you share more details about `disable plugin` option you >>> found? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I see that idea instance starts with the default >>> -Didea.plugins.path >>>>>>>>> system property, can we change it so the plugins will be not >>> loaded >>>>> by >>>>>>>>> default? >>>>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 15:45, Andrey Mashenkov >>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Maxim, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> It looks like we can't make logs more verbose due to possible >>> bug, >>>>>>> I've create a ticket in Jetbrains Jira [1]. >>>>>>>>>> We can just publish idea logs in artefacts as suggested in >> this >>>>>>> manual [2]. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> For now, Inspections logs looks like this one [3]. >>>>>>>>>> Also, would you please to take a look at inspection report >> and >>>>> check >>>>>>> if we missed smth and there are any unwanted inspection turned on. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> [1] https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/TW-58422 >>>>>>>>>> [2] >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >> https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Reporting+Issues#ReportingIssues-IntelliJIDEAInspections >>>>>>>>>> [3] >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=2538111&buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_ExcludedInspections2&tab=artifacts >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 3:19 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < >>> [hidden email] >>>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Maxim M, do you know if we can disable inspections by >>> wildcard? >>>>> E.g. >>>>>>>>>>> Android* ? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 14:59, Andrey Mashenkov < >>>>>>> [hidden email]>: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Fixed memory issues with increasing heap size and forcing >>> G1GC. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Do we need all these plugins loaded for inspections? >>>>>>>>>>>> I've found a 'disable plugin' option in TC Inspections >> build >>>>>>> configuration, >>>>>>>>>>>> but it is unclear how to disable plugin correctly. >>>>>>>>>>>> Can someone take over this? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 46 plugins initialized in 1031 ms >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-12-13 10:55:24,875 [ 1342] INFO - >>>>>>> llij.ide.plugins.PluginManager - >>>>>>>>>>>>> Loaded bundled plugins: Android Support (10.2.3), Ant >>> Support >>>>>>> (1.0), CSS >>>>>>>>>>>>> Support (172.4574.11), Database Tools and SQL >>> (172.4574.11), >>>>>>> Eclipse >>>>>>>>>>>>> Integration (3.0), FreeMarker support (1.0), GWT Support >>>>> (1.0), >>>>>>> Gradle >>>>>>>>>>>>> (172.4574.11), Groovy (9.0), Guice (8.0), HTML Tools >>> (2.0), >>>>>>> Hibernate >>>>>>>>>>>>> Support (1.0), I18n for Java (172.4574.11), IDEA CORE >>>>>>> (172.4574.11), >>>>>>>>>>>>> IntelliLang (8.0), JBoss Seam Support (1.0), JUnit >> (1.0), >>> Java >>>>>>> EE: Bean >>>>>>>>>>>>> Validation Support (1.1), Java EE: Contexts and >> Dependency >>>>>>> Injection >>>>>>>>>>>> (1.1), >>>>>>>>>>>>> Java EE: EJB, JPA, Servlets (1.0), Java EE: Java Server >>> Faces >>>>>>> (2.2.X.), >>>>>>>>>>>>> Java EE: Web Services (JAX-WS) (1.9), Java Server Pages >>> (JSP) >>>>>>> Integration >>>>>>>>>>>>> (1.0), JavaScript Support (1.0), Kotlin >>>>>>> (1.1.4-release-IJ2017.2-3), Maven >>>>>>>>>>>>> Integration (172.4574.11), Persistence Frameworks >> Support >>>>>>> (1.0), Plugin >>>>>>>>>>>>> DevKit (1.0), Properties Support (172.4574.11), >> QuirksMode >>>>>>> (172.4574.11), >>>>>>>>>>>>> Spring AOP/@AspectJ (1.0), Spring Batch (1.0), Spring >> Data >>>>>>> (1.0), Spring >>>>>>>>>>>>> Integration Patterns (1.0), Spring Security (1.0), >> Spring >>>>>>> Support (1.0), >>>>>>>>>>>>> Spring Web Flow (1.0), Spring Web Services (1.0), Struts >>> 1.x >>>>>>> (2.0), >>>>>>>>>>>> Struts >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 (1.0), TestNG-J (8.0), UI Designer (172.4574.11), >>> Velocity >>>>>>> support >>>>>>>>>>>> (1.0), >>>>>>>>>>>>> W3C Validators (2.0), WebLogic Integration (1.0), >>> XPathView + >>>>>>> XSLT >>>>>>>>>>>> Support >>>>>>>>>>>>> (4) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Kotlin plugins fails to start, let's disable it. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-12-13 10:55:27,623 [ 4090] INFO - >>>>>>>>>>>> il.indexing.FileBasedIndexImpl - Rebuild requested for >> index >>>>>>>>>>>> >>> org.jetbrains.kotlin.idea.versions.KotlinJvmMetadataVersionIndex >>>>>>>>>>>>> java.lang.Throwable >>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >> com.intellij.util.indexing.FileBasedIndex.requestRebuild(FileBasedIndex.java:68) >>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >> org.jetbrains.kotlin.idea.versions.KotlinUpdatePluginComponent.initComponent(KotlinUpdatePluginComponent.kt:54) >>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >> com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl$ComponentConfigComponentAdapter.getComponentInstance(ComponentManagerImpl.java:492) >>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >> com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl.createComponents(ComponentManagerImpl.java:118) >>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >> com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.a(ApplicationImpl.java:462) >>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >> com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.createComponents(ApplicationImpl.java:466) >>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >> com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl.init(ComponentManagerImpl.java:102) >>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >> com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.load(ApplicationImpl.java:421) >>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >> com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.load(ApplicationImpl.java:407) >>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>> com.intellij.idea.IdeaApplication.run(IdeaApplication.java:203) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 1:45 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < >>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, let's apply. I hope all TC agents may handle 4G >>> heap. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 12:54, Andrey Mashenkov < >>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> : >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've just creates a copy of Inspections TC build task >>> with >>>>> GC >>>>>>> logs >>>>>>>>>>>> turned >>>>>>>>>>>>>> on to check if there is any issues >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and found Inspections task spent too much time in STW >>> due to >>>>>>> long Full >>>>>>>>>>>> GC >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pauses. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've tried to increase Xmx up to 4Gb and use G1GC got >> 2+ >>>>>>> times better >>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution time down to ~15 min (~17 for 2G heap). >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Increasing heap size only is not very helpful as it >> just >>>>>>> postpone Full >>>>>>>>>>>> GC >>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues, but changing GC to G1GC gives noticeable >> result. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's apply this optimization. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 12:43 PM Vyacheslav Daradur < >>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Maxim, Nikolay, I have the following questions >>>>> regarding >>>>>>>>>>>>> inspections: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should 'gnite_inspections_teamcity.xml' been >> imported >>> into >>>>>>> IDEA, >>>>>>>>>>>> since >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'ignite_inspections.xml' has been removed in actual >>>>> master? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, I've faced mismatching: if I use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> '@SuppressWarnings("ErrorNotRethrown")' in code, >> then >>> this >>>>>>> will be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> marked on TC as "Redundant suppression". If I >> removed >>> this >>>>>>>>>>>> suppression >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in "main" code base (not in tests) then it's fine >> and >>> IDE >>>>>>> does not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mark the code by inspection. But, if I use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'GridTestUtils#assertThrows' in 'tests' code base, >>> then >>>>> IDE >>>>>>> requires >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to suppress the inspection, if I have done it then >> TC >>>>> marks >>>>>>> this as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Redundant suppression". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What should I do in this case? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 10:26 PM Andrey Mashenkov >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have someone tried to investigate the issue >> related >>> to >>>>>>> Inspection >>>>>>>>>>>> TC >>>>>>>>>>>>>> task >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution time variation (from 0.5 up to 1,5 >> hours)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can we enable GC logs for this task or may be even >>> get >>>>>>> CPU, Disk, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Network >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> metrics? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can someone check if there are unnecessary Idea >>> plugins >>>>>>> starts that >>>>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> safely disabled? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:52 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < >>>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm totally with you in this decision, let's >> move >>> the >>>>>>> file. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 27 нояб. 2018 г. в 16:24, Maxim Muzafarov < >>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I propose to make inspection configuration >>> default >>>>> on >>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>> project >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level. I've created a new issue [1] for it. It >>> can >>>>> be >>>>>>> easily >>>>>>>>>>>> done >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recommend by IntelliJ documentation [2]. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vyacheslav, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you share an example of your warnings? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Currently, we have different inspection >>>>>>> configurations: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - ignite_inspections.xml - to import >>> inspections as >>>>>>> default and >>>>>>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> daily. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml - config to >>> run it >>>>>>> on TC. >>>>>>>>>>>> Only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules in the project code are enabled. Each of >>> these >>>>>>> rules are >>>>>>>>>>>>>> marked >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with ERROR level. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10422 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] >>>>>>> https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/code-inspection.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 at 13:58, Nikolay Izhikov >> < >>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Vyacheslav. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, we have. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim Muzafarov, can you fix it, please? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г., 13:10 Vyacheslav >> Daradur >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys, why we have 2 different inspection >>> files >>>>> in >>>>>>> the repo? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea\ignite_inspections.xml >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea\ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AFAIK TeamCity is able to use the same >>>>> inspection >>>>>>> file with >>>>>>>>>>>>>> IDE. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've imported >> 'idea\ignite_inspections.xml' >>> in >>>>>>> the IDE, but >>>>>>>>>>>>> now >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inspection warnings for my PR on TC >> because >>> of >>>>>>> different >>>>>>>>>>>>> rules. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 6:06 PM Maxim >>> Muzafarov >>>>> < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yakov, Dmitry, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which example of unsuccessful suite >>> execution >>>>>>> do we need? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does the current fail [1] in the master >>> branch >>>>>>> enough to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notifications by TC.Bot? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please consider adding more checks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - line endings. I think we should only >>> have >>>>> \n >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - ensure blank line at the end of file >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that `line endings` is >>> easy to >>>>>>> add, but >>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `blank >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> line at the end` we need as special >>> regexp. >>>>> Can >>>>>>> we focus >>>>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> built-in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IntelliJ inspections at first and fix >>> others >>>>>>> special >>>>>>>>>>>>> further? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 at 17:55, Maxim >>> Muzafarov >>>>> < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since the inspection rules are >> included >>> in >>>>>>> RunAll a few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community mentioned a wide distributed >>>>>>> execution time >>>>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>>> TC >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agents: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - 1h:27m:38s publicagent17_9094 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - 38m:04s publicagent17_9094 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - 33m:29s publicagent17_9094 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - 17m:13s publicagent17_9094 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems that we should configure the >>>>>>> resources >>>>>>>>>>>>>> distribution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> across TC >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers. Can anyone take a look at >>> it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've also prepared the short list of >>> rules >>>>> to >>>>>>> work on: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + Inconsistent line separators (6 >>> matches) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + Problematic whitespace (4 matches) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + expression.equals("literal")' rather >>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> '"literal".equals(expression) (53 >>> matches) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + Unnecessary 'null' check before >>>>> 'instanceof' >>>>>>>>>>>> expression >>>>>>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> call >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (42 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matches) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + Redundant 'if' statement (69 >> matches) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + Redundant interface declaration (28 >>>>> matches) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + Double negation (0 matches) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + Unnecessary code block (472 matches) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + Line is longer than allowed by code >>> style >>>>>>> (2614 >>>>>>>>>>>>> matches) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Is it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible to implement?) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 23:43, Dmitriy >>>>> Pavlov < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Maxim, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thank you for your efforts to make >>> this >>>>>>> happen. Keep >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pace! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please provide an example >>> of how >>>>>>>>>>>> Inspections >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another contributor could implement >>>>> support >>>>>>> of these >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failures >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Tc Bot. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 26 окт. 2018 г. в 18:27, Yakov >>>>> Zhdanov < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for response, let's do it >>> the way >>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please consider adding more checks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - line endings. I think we should >>> only >>>>>>> have \n >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - ensure blank line in the end of >>> file >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All these are code reviews issues >> I >>>>>>> pointed out >>>>>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conributions. It would be cool if >> we >>>>> have >>>>>>> TC build >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failing if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is any. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Yakov >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey V. Mashenkov >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey V. Mashenkov >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey V. Mashenkov >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>> Andrey V. Mashenkov >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>> Andrey V. Mashenkov >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>> Andrey V. Mashenkov >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> Best regards, >>>>> Andrey V. Mashenkov >>>>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Andrey V. Mashenkov >> |
|
|
It seems there is bug in latest 2018.2 TeamCity
Bug is filed [1] [1] https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/TW-58504 > On 19 Dec 2018, at 11:31, Petr Ivanov <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Investigating problem, stand by. > > >> On 18 Dec 2018, at 19:41, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> Both patches were applied. Maxim, thank you! >> >> What about 1. An `Unexpected error during build messages processing in >> TeamCity`, what can we do as the next step to fix it? >> >> Sincerely, >> Dmitriy Pavlov >> >> пн, 17 дек. 2018 г. в 18:31, Andrey Mashenkov <[hidden email]>: >> >>> Maxim, >>> >>> Looks ok. Let's apply IGNITE-10682. >>> >>> All, >>> >>> Also, I'd like to publish idea.logs into artefacts by default. >>> This will give us more details for investigation in future if any failure >>> will occurs. >>> It will costs 1-10 kB. >>> >>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 3:21 PM Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Dmitry, >>>> >>>> It seems to me that we have two independent issues here. >>>> 1. An `Unexpected error during build messages processing in TeamCity` >>>> error message which is related to TC agent configuration. Suppose, >>>> server.log will provide us more details about it. I have to access >>>> there. >>>> 2. A new set of inspection rules was introduced in 2018+ IntelliJ IDEA >>>> and they should be disabled in our ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml >>>> configuration file. They are not fixed in the Apache Ignite project >>>> code yet. I've prepared the issue [1] for it. Please, take a look. >>>> >>>> >>>> Andrey, >>>> >>>> I've fixed disabled plugins file according to your suggestions. The >>>> issue [2] is ready. I've re-run `Excluded [Inspections] Core Debug` >>>> suite and the log details show me that now only 3 plugins are enabled: >>>> IDEA CORE, Maven Integration, Properties Support. It seems to me that >>>> it's correct. >>>> >>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10709 >>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10682 >>>> >>>> On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 15:22, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Folks, >>>>> >>>>> There is a strange error on TC >>>>> >>>> >>> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=2556875&buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore >>>>> >>>>> It appeared after TC update to the latest version. >>>>> >>>>> Sincerely, >>>>> Dmitry Pavlov >>>>> >>>>> пт, 14 дек. 2018 г. в 16:09, Andrey Mashenkov < >>>> [hidden email]>: >>>>> >>>>>> Maxim, >>>>>> >>>>>> PR is incomplete. Some plugins should be disabled with different >>>> id\name. >>>>>> Maven plugin shouldn't be disabled as Idea Inspector use it to use >>>> Ignite >>>>>> project pom file. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please, find details in ticket. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 12:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov < >>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Maxim, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, I'll check PR and let you know about results. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> For now, Inspections task execution time looks much better (15-22 >>>> min), >>>>>>> but fluctuation is still noticeable. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 11:13 AM Maxim Muzafarov < >>> [hidden email] >>>>> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Andrey, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks! I've consulted with the IntelliJ IDEA source code and >>> found >>>>>>>> how this disabled plugins file should look like. I've created a >>> new >>>>>>>> issue [1] and prepared PR [2] with the set of disabled plugins >>>> (maybe >>>>>>>> not complete set). I don't have access to change corresponding >>>>>>>> `~Excluded [Inspections] Core Debug` test suite properties. >>>>>>>> Can we test this PR? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10682 >>>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5666 >>>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 17:35, Andrey Mashenkov >>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Maxim, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Idea has a file in config directory >>> ./config/disabled_plugins.txt >>>> , >>>>>> you >>>>>>>> can easily find it at you local machine. >>>>>>>>> Teamcity Inspections runner has an option "Disabled plugins" >>> where >>>>>>>> disabled_plugins.txt file content can be set. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So, looks like we can disable useless plugins. >>>>>>>>> But I'm not expert and can't suggest changes we can safely >>> apply. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 4:59 PM Maxim Muzafarov < >>>> [hidden email]> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Andrey, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thank you for solving this issue with GC pauses! I've checked >>> the >>>>>>>>>> given report. The inspections configuration is correct, but it >>>> seems >>>>>>>>>> to me that we have enabled by default rules of included plugins >>>> (for >>>>>>>>>> instance, KotlinInternalInJava in the report is enabled). >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Can you share more details about `disable plugin` option you >>>> found? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I see that idea instance starts with the default >>>> -Didea.plugins.path >>>>>>>>>> system property, can we change it so the plugins will be not >>>> loaded >>>>>> by >>>>>>>>>> default? >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 15:45, Andrey Mashenkov >>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Maxim, >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> It looks like we can't make logs more verbose due to possible >>>> bug, >>>>>>>> I've create a ticket in Jetbrains Jira [1]. >>>>>>>>>>> We can just publish idea logs in artefacts as suggested in >>> this >>>>>>>> manual [2]. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> For now, Inspections logs looks like this one [3]. >>>>>>>>>>> Also, would you please to take a look at inspection report >>> and >>>>>> check >>>>>>>> if we missed smth and there are any unwanted inspection turned on. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/TW-58422 >>>>>>>>>>> [2] >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Reporting+Issues#ReportingIssues-IntelliJIDEAInspections >>>>>>>>>>> [3] >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=2538111&buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_ExcludedInspections2&tab=artifacts >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 3:19 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < >>>> [hidden email] >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim M, do you know if we can disable inspections by >>>> wildcard? >>>>>> E.g. >>>>>>>>>>>> Android* ? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 14:59, Andrey Mashenkov < >>>>>>>> [hidden email]>: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Fixed memory issues with increasing heap size and forcing >>>> G1GC. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we need all these plugins loaded for inspections? >>>>>>>>>>>>> I've found a 'disable plugin' option in TC Inspections >>> build >>>>>>>> configuration, >>>>>>>>>>>>> but it is unclear how to disable plugin correctly. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can someone take over this? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 46 plugins initialized in 1031 ms >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-12-13 10:55:24,875 [ 1342] INFO - >>>>>>>> llij.ide.plugins.PluginManager - >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Loaded bundled plugins: Android Support (10.2.3), Ant >>>> Support >>>>>>>> (1.0), CSS >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Support (172.4574.11), Database Tools and SQL >>>> (172.4574.11), >>>>>>>> Eclipse >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Integration (3.0), FreeMarker support (1.0), GWT Support >>>>>> (1.0), >>>>>>>> Gradle >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (172.4574.11), Groovy (9.0), Guice (8.0), HTML Tools >>>> (2.0), >>>>>>>> Hibernate >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Support (1.0), I18n for Java (172.4574.11), IDEA CORE >>>>>>>> (172.4574.11), >>>>>>>>>>>>>> IntelliLang (8.0), JBoss Seam Support (1.0), JUnit >>> (1.0), >>>> Java >>>>>>>> EE: Bean >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Validation Support (1.1), Java EE: Contexts and >>> Dependency >>>>>>>> Injection >>>>>>>>>>>>> (1.1), >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Java EE: EJB, JPA, Servlets (1.0), Java EE: Java Server >>>> Faces >>>>>>>> (2.2.X.), >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Java EE: Web Services (JAX-WS) (1.9), Java Server Pages >>>> (JSP) >>>>>>>> Integration >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1.0), JavaScript Support (1.0), Kotlin >>>>>>>> (1.1.4-release-IJ2017.2-3), Maven >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Integration (172.4574.11), Persistence Frameworks >>> Support >>>>>>>> (1.0), Plugin >>>>>>>>>>>>>> DevKit (1.0), Properties Support (172.4574.11), >>> QuirksMode >>>>>>>> (172.4574.11), >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Spring AOP/@AspectJ (1.0), Spring Batch (1.0), Spring >>> Data >>>>>>>> (1.0), Spring >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Integration Patterns (1.0), Spring Security (1.0), >>> Spring >>>>>>>> Support (1.0), >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Spring Web Flow (1.0), Spring Web Services (1.0), Struts >>>> 1.x >>>>>>>> (2.0), >>>>>>>>>>>>> Struts >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 (1.0), TestNG-J (8.0), UI Designer (172.4574.11), >>>> Velocity >>>>>>>> support >>>>>>>>>>>>> (1.0), >>>>>>>>>>>>>> W3C Validators (2.0), WebLogic Integration (1.0), >>>> XPathView + >>>>>>>> XSLT >>>>>>>>>>>>> Support >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (4) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Kotlin plugins fails to start, let's disable it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-12-13 10:55:27,623 [ 4090] INFO - >>>>>>>>>>>>> il.indexing.FileBasedIndexImpl - Rebuild requested for >>> index >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>> org.jetbrains.kotlin.idea.versions.KotlinJvmMetadataVersionIndex >>>>>>>>>>>>>> java.lang.Throwable >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> com.intellij.util.indexing.FileBasedIndex.requestRebuild(FileBasedIndex.java:68) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> org.jetbrains.kotlin.idea.versions.KotlinUpdatePluginComponent.initComponent(KotlinUpdatePluginComponent.kt:54) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl$ComponentConfigComponentAdapter.getComponentInstance(ComponentManagerImpl.java:492) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl.createComponents(ComponentManagerImpl.java:118) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.a(ApplicationImpl.java:462) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.createComponents(ApplicationImpl.java:466) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl.init(ComponentManagerImpl.java:102) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.load(ApplicationImpl.java:421) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.load(ApplicationImpl.java:407) >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at >>>>>>>> com.intellij.idea.IdeaApplication.run(IdeaApplication.java:203) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 1:45 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < >>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, let's apply. I hope all TC agents may handle 4G >>>> heap. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 12:54, Andrey Mashenkov < >>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> : >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've just creates a copy of Inspections TC build task >>>> with >>>>>> GC >>>>>>>> logs >>>>>>>>>>>>> turned >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on to check if there is any issues >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and found Inspections task spent too much time in STW >>>> due to >>>>>>>> long Full >>>>>>>>>>>>> GC >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pauses. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've tried to increase Xmx up to 4Gb and use G1GC got >>> 2+ >>>>>>>> times better >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution time down to ~15 min (~17 for 2G heap). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Increasing heap size only is not very helpful as it >>> just >>>>>>>> postpone Full >>>>>>>>>>>>> GC >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues, but changing GC to G1GC gives noticeable >>> result. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's apply this optimization. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 12:43 PM Vyacheslav Daradur < >>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Maxim, Nikolay, I have the following questions >>>>>> regarding >>>>>>>>>>>>>> inspections: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should 'gnite_inspections_teamcity.xml' been >>> imported >>>> into >>>>>>>> IDEA, >>>>>>>>>>>>> since >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'ignite_inspections.xml' has been removed in actual >>>>>> master? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, I've faced mismatching: if I use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> '@SuppressWarnings("ErrorNotRethrown")' in code, >>> then >>>> this >>>>>>>> will be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> marked on TC as "Redundant suppression". If I >>> removed >>>> this >>>>>>>>>>>>> suppression >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in "main" code base (not in tests) then it's fine >>> and >>>> IDE >>>>>>>> does not >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mark the code by inspection. But, if I use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'GridTestUtils#assertThrows' in 'tests' code base, >>>> then >>>>>> IDE >>>>>>>> requires >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to suppress the inspection, if I have done it then >>> TC >>>>>> marks >>>>>>>> this as >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Redundant suppression". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What should I do in this case? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 10:26 PM Andrey Mashenkov >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have someone tried to investigate the issue >>> related >>>> to >>>>>>>> Inspection >>>>>>>>>>>>> TC >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> task >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution time variation (from 0.5 up to 1,5 >>> hours)? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can we enable GC logs for this task or may be even >>>> get >>>>>>>> CPU, Disk, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Network >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> metrics? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can someone check if there are unnecessary Idea >>>> plugins >>>>>>>> starts that >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> safely disabled? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:52 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < >>>>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm totally with you in this decision, let's >>> move >>>> the >>>>>>>> file. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 27 нояб. 2018 г. в 16:24, Maxim Muzafarov < >>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I propose to make inspection configuration >>>> default >>>>>> on >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>> project >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level. I've created a new issue [1] for it. It >>>> can >>>>>> be >>>>>>>> easily >>>>>>>>>>>>> done >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recommend by IntelliJ documentation [2]. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vyacheslav, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you share an example of your warnings? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Currently, we have different inspection >>>>>>>> configurations: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - ignite_inspections.xml - to import >>>> inspections as >>>>>>>> default and >>>>>>>>>>>>>> use >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> daily. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml - config to >>>> run it >>>>>>>> on TC. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Only >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixed >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules in the project code are enabled. Each of >>>> these >>>>>>>> rules are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> marked >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with ERROR level. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10422 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] >>>>>>>> https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/code-inspection.html >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 at 13:58, Nikolay Izhikov >>> < >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Vyacheslav. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, we have. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim Muzafarov, can you fix it, please? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г., 13:10 Vyacheslav >>> Daradur >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys, why we have 2 different inspection >>>> files >>>>>> in >>>>>>>> the repo? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea\ignite_inspections.xml >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea\ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AFAIK TeamCity is able to use the same >>>>>> inspection >>>>>>>> file with >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IDE. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've imported >>> 'idea\ignite_inspections.xml' >>>> in >>>>>>>> the IDE, but >>>>>>>>>>>>>> now >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inspection warnings for my PR on TC >>> because >>>> of >>>>>>>> different >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 6:06 PM Maxim >>>> Muzafarov >>>>>> < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yakov, Dmitry, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which example of unsuccessful suite >>>> execution >>>>>>>> do we need? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does the current fail [1] in the master >>>> branch >>>>>>>> enough to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configure >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notifications by TC.Bot? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please consider adding more checks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - line endings. I think we should only >>>> have >>>>>> \n >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - ensure blank line at the end of file >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that `line endings` is >>>> easy to >>>>>>>> add, but >>>>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `blank >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> line at the end` we need as special >>>> regexp. >>>>>> Can >>>>>>>> we focus >>>>>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> built-in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IntelliJ inspections at first and fix >>>> others >>>>>>>> special >>>>>>>>>>>>>> further? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 at 17:55, Maxim >>>> Muzafarov >>>>>> < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since the inspection rules are >>> included >>>> in >>>>>>>> RunAll a few >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community mentioned a wide distributed >>>>>>>> execution time >>>>>>>>>>>>> on >>>>>>>>>>>>>> TC >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agents: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - 1h:27m:38s publicagent17_9094 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - 38m:04s publicagent17_9094 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - 33m:29s publicagent17_9094 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - 17m:13s publicagent17_9094 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems that we should configure the >>>>>>>> resources >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distribution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> across TC >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers. Can anyone take a look at >>>> it? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've also prepared the short list of >>>> rules >>>>>> to >>>>>>>> work on: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + Inconsistent line separators (6 >>>> matches) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + Problematic whitespace (4 matches) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + expression.equals("literal")' rather >>>> than >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> '"literal".equals(expression) (53 >>>> matches) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + Unnecessary 'null' check before >>>>>> 'instanceof' >>>>>>>>>>>>> expression >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> call >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (42 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matches) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + Redundant 'if' statement (69 >>> matches) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + Redundant interface declaration (28 >>>>>> matches) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + Double negation (0 matches) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + Unnecessary code block (472 matches) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + Line is longer than allowed by code >>>> style >>>>>>>> (2614 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> matches) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Is it >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible to implement?) >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 23:43, Dmitriy >>>>>> Pavlov < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Maxim, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thank you for your efforts to make >>>> this >>>>>>>> happen. Keep >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pace! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please provide an example >>>> of how >>>>>>>>>>>>> Inspections >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I or >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another contributor could implement >>>>>> support >>>>>>>> of these >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failures >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Tc Bot. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 26 окт. 2018 г. в 18:27, Yakov >>>>>> Zhdanov < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> : >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for response, let's do it >>>> the way >>>>>>>> you >>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please consider adding more checks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - line endings. I think we should >>>> only >>>>>>>> have \n >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - ensure blank line in the end of >>>> file >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All these are code reviews issues >>> I >>>>>>>> pointed out >>>>>>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conributions. It would be cool if >>> we >>>>>> have >>>>>>>> TC build >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failing if >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is any. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks! >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Yakov >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey V. Mashenkov >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey V. Mashenkov >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey V. Mashenkov >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>>>> Andrey V. Mashenkov >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>>>> Andrey V. Mashenkov >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>>> Andrey V. Mashenkov >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Best regards, >>>>>> Andrey V. Mashenkov >>>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Best regards, >>> Andrey V. Mashenkov >>> > |
|
|
Igniters,
I've found that some of the community members have faced with `[Inspections] Core suite [1]` is not working well enough on TC. The suite has a `FAILED` status for more than 2 months due to some issues in TeamCity application [2]. Current suite behaviour confuses not only new contributors but also other community members. Moreover, this suite is no longer checks rules we previously configured. For instance, in the master branch, I've found 11 `Unused imports` which should have been caught earlier (e.g. for {{IgniteCachePutAllRestartTest} [3]). I think we should make the next step to enable an automatic code style checks. As an example, we can consider the Apache Kafka code style [5] way and configure for the Ignite project a maven-checkstyle-plugin with its own maven profile and run it simultaneously with other TC. We can also enable the previously configured inspection rules, so no coding style violations will be missed. I see some advantages of using a maven plugin: - an IDE agnostic way for code checks - can be used with different CI and build tools (Jenkins, TC) - executable from the command line - the entry single point to configure new rules I've created the ticket [4] and will prepare PR for it. WDYT? [1] https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv [2] https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/TW-58504 [3]https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/core/src/test/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/processors/cache/IgniteCachePutAllRestartTest.java#L29 [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11277 [5] https://github.com/apache/kafka/tree/trunk/checkstyle On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 16:03, Petr Ivanov <[hidden email]> wrote: > > It seems there is bug in latest 2018.2 TeamCity > Bug is filed [1] > > > [1] https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/TW-58504 > > > On 19 Dec 2018, at 11:31, Petr Ivanov <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > Investigating problem, stand by. > > > > > >> On 18 Dec 2018, at 19:41, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> > >> Both patches were applied. Maxim, thank you! > >> > >> What about 1. An `Unexpected error during build messages processing in > >> TeamCity`, what can we do as the next step to fix it? > >> > >> Sincerely, > >> Dmitriy Pavlov > >> > >> пн, 17 дек. 2018 г. в 18:31, Andrey Mashenkov <[hidden email]>: > >> > >>> Maxim, > >>> > >>> Looks ok. Let's apply IGNITE-10682. > >>> > >>> All, > >>> > >>> Also, I'd like to publish idea.logs into artefacts by default. > >>> This will give us more details for investigation in future if any failure > >>> will occurs. > >>> It will costs 1-10 kB. > >>> > >>> On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 3:21 PM Maxim Muzafarov <[hidden email]> > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Dmitry, > >>>> > >>>> It seems to me that we have two independent issues here. > >>>> 1. An `Unexpected error during build messages processing in TeamCity` > >>>> error message which is related to TC agent configuration. Suppose, > >>>> server.log will provide us more details about it. I have to access > >>>> there. > >>>> 2. A new set of inspection rules was introduced in 2018+ IntelliJ IDEA > >>>> and they should be disabled in our ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml > >>>> configuration file. They are not fixed in the Apache Ignite project > >>>> code yet. I've prepared the issue [1] for it. Please, take a look. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Andrey, > >>>> > >>>> I've fixed disabled plugins file according to your suggestions. The > >>>> issue [2] is ready. I've re-run `Excluded [Inspections] Core Debug` > >>>> suite and the log details show me that now only 3 plugins are enabled: > >>>> IDEA CORE, Maven Integration, Properties Support. It seems to me that > >>>> it's correct. > >>>> > >>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10709 > >>>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10682 > >>>> > >>>> On Sat, 15 Dec 2018 at 15:22, Dmitriy Pavlov <[hidden email]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Folks, > >>>>> > >>>>> There is a strange error on TC > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=2556875&buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore > >>>>> > >>>>> It appeared after TC update to the latest version. > >>>>> > >>>>> Sincerely, > >>>>> Dmitry Pavlov > >>>>> > >>>>> пт, 14 дек. 2018 г. в 16:09, Andrey Mashenkov < > >>>> [hidden email]>: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Maxim, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> PR is incomplete. Some plugins should be disabled with different > >>>> id\name. > >>>>>> Maven plugin shouldn't be disabled as Idea Inspector use it to use > >>>> Ignite > >>>>>> project pom file. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Please, find details in ticket. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 12:00 PM Andrey Mashenkov < > >>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> Maxim, > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Thanks, I'll check PR and let you know about results. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> For now, Inspections task execution time looks much better (15-22 > >>>> min), > >>>>>>> but fluctuation is still noticeable. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2018 at 11:13 AM Maxim Muzafarov < > >>> [hidden email] > >>>>> > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Andrey, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks! I've consulted with the IntelliJ IDEA source code and > >>> found > >>>>>>>> how this disabled plugins file should look like. I've created a > >>> new > >>>>>>>> issue [1] and prepared PR [2] with the set of disabled plugins > >>>> (maybe > >>>>>>>> not complete set). I don't have access to change corresponding > >>>>>>>> `~Excluded [Inspections] Core Debug` test suite properties. > >>>>>>>> Can we test this PR? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10682 > >>>>>>>> [2] https://github.com/apache/ignite/pull/5666 > >>>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 17:35, Andrey Mashenkov > >>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Maxim, > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Idea has a file in config directory > >>> ./config/disabled_plugins.txt > >>>> , > >>>>>> you > >>>>>>>> can easily find it at you local machine. > >>>>>>>>> Teamcity Inspections runner has an option "Disabled plugins" > >>> where > >>>>>>>> disabled_plugins.txt file content can be set. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> So, looks like we can disable useless plugins. > >>>>>>>>> But I'm not expert and can't suggest changes we can safely > >>> apply. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 4:59 PM Maxim Muzafarov < > >>>> [hidden email]> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Andrey, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Thank you for solving this issue with GC pauses! I've checked > >>> the > >>>>>>>>>> given report. The inspections configuration is correct, but it > >>>> seems > >>>>>>>>>> to me that we have enabled by default rules of included plugins > >>>> (for > >>>>>>>>>> instance, KotlinInternalInJava in the report is enabled). > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Can you share more details about `disable plugin` option you > >>>> found? > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I see that idea instance starts with the default > >>>> -Didea.plugins.path > >>>>>>>>>> system property, can we change it so the plugins will be not > >>>> loaded > >>>>>> by > >>>>>>>>>> default? > >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 13 Dec 2018 at 15:45, Andrey Mashenkov > >>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Maxim, > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> It looks like we can't make logs more verbose due to possible > >>>> bug, > >>>>>>>> I've create a ticket in Jetbrains Jira [1]. > >>>>>>>>>>> We can just publish idea logs in artefacts as suggested in > >>> this > >>>>>>>> manual [2]. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> For now, Inspections logs looks like this one [3]. > >>>>>>>>>>> Also, would you please to take a look at inspection report > >>> and > >>>>>> check > >>>>>>>> if we missed smth and there are any unwanted inspection turned on. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> [1] https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/TW-58422 > >>>>>>>>>>> [2] > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>> https://confluence.jetbrains.com/display/TCD10/Reporting+Issues#ReportingIssues-IntelliJIDEAInspections > >>>>>>>>>>> [3] > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewLog.html?buildId=2538111&buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_ExcludedInspections2&tab=artifacts > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 3:19 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > >>>> [hidden email] > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim M, do you know if we can disable inspections by > >>>> wildcard? > >>>>>> E.g. > >>>>>>>>>>>> Android* ? > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 14:59, Andrey Mashenkov < > >>>>>>>> [hidden email]>: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Fixed memory issues with increasing heap size and forcing > >>>> G1GC. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Do we need all these plugins loaded for inspections? > >>>>>>>>>>>>> I've found a 'disable plugin' option in TC Inspections > >>> build > >>>>>>>> configuration, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> but it is unclear how to disable plugin correctly. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can someone take over this? > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 46 plugins initialized in 1031 ms > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-12-13 10:55:24,875 [ 1342] INFO - > >>>>>>>> llij.ide.plugins.PluginManager - > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Loaded bundled plugins: Android Support (10.2.3), Ant > >>>> Support > >>>>>>>> (1.0), CSS > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Support (172.4574.11), Database Tools and SQL > >>>> (172.4574.11), > >>>>>>>> Eclipse > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Integration (3.0), FreeMarker support (1.0), GWT Support > >>>>>> (1.0), > >>>>>>>> Gradle > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (172.4574.11), Groovy (9.0), Guice (8.0), HTML Tools > >>>> (2.0), > >>>>>>>> Hibernate > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Support (1.0), I18n for Java (172.4574.11), IDEA CORE > >>>>>>>> (172.4574.11), > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> IntelliLang (8.0), JBoss Seam Support (1.0), JUnit > >>> (1.0), > >>>> Java > >>>>>>>> EE: Bean > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Validation Support (1.1), Java EE: Contexts and > >>> Dependency > >>>>>>>> Injection > >>>>>>>>>>>>> (1.1), > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Java EE: EJB, JPA, Servlets (1.0), Java EE: Java Server > >>>> Faces > >>>>>>>> (2.2.X.), > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Java EE: Web Services (JAX-WS) (1.9), Java Server Pages > >>>> (JSP) > >>>>>>>> Integration > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (1.0), JavaScript Support (1.0), Kotlin > >>>>>>>> (1.1.4-release-IJ2017.2-3), Maven > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Integration (172.4574.11), Persistence Frameworks > >>> Support > >>>>>>>> (1.0), Plugin > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> DevKit (1.0), Properties Support (172.4574.11), > >>> QuirksMode > >>>>>>>> (172.4574.11), > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Spring AOP/@AspectJ (1.0), Spring Batch (1.0), Spring > >>> Data > >>>>>>>> (1.0), Spring > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Integration Patterns (1.0), Spring Security (1.0), > >>> Spring > >>>>>>>> Support (1.0), > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Spring Web Flow (1.0), Spring Web Services (1.0), Struts > >>>> 1.x > >>>>>>>> (2.0), > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Struts > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2 (1.0), TestNG-J (8.0), UI Designer (172.4574.11), > >>>> Velocity > >>>>>>>> support > >>>>>>>>>>>>> (1.0), > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> W3C Validators (2.0), WebLogic Integration (1.0), > >>>> XPathView + > >>>>>>>> XSLT > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Support > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (4) > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Kotlin plugins fails to start, let's disable it. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2018-12-13 10:55:27,623 [ 4090] INFO - > >>>>>>>>>>>>> il.indexing.FileBasedIndexImpl - Rebuild requested for > >>> index > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>> org.jetbrains.kotlin.idea.versions.KotlinJvmMetadataVersionIndex > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> java.lang.Throwable > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>> com.intellij.util.indexing.FileBasedIndex.requestRebuild(FileBasedIndex.java:68) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>> org.jetbrains.kotlin.idea.versions.KotlinUpdatePluginComponent.initComponent(KotlinUpdatePluginComponent.kt:54) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>> com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl$ComponentConfigComponentAdapter.getComponentInstance(ComponentManagerImpl.java:492) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>> com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl.createComponents(ComponentManagerImpl.java:118) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>> com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.a(ApplicationImpl.java:462) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>> com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.createComponents(ApplicationImpl.java:466) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>> com.intellij.openapi.components.impl.ComponentManagerImpl.init(ComponentManagerImpl.java:102) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>> com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.load(ApplicationImpl.java:421) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>> com.intellij.openapi.application.impl.ApplicationImpl.load(ApplicationImpl.java:407) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> at > >>>>>>>> com.intellij.idea.IdeaApplication.run(IdeaApplication.java:203) > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 1:45 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > >>>>>>>> [hidden email]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, let's apply. I hope all TC agents may handle 4G > >>>> heap. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> чт, 13 дек. 2018 г. в 12:54, Andrey Mashenkov < > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> : > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've just creates a copy of Inspections TC build task > >>>> with > >>>>>> GC > >>>>>>>> logs > >>>>>>>>>>>>> turned > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on to check if there is any issues > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and found Inspections task spent too much time in STW > >>>> due to > >>>>>>>> long Full > >>>>>>>>>>>>> GC > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pauses. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've tried to increase Xmx up to 4Gb and use G1GC got > >>> 2+ > >>>>>>>> times better > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution time down to ~15 min (~17 for 2G heap). > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Increasing heap size only is not very helpful as it > >>> just > >>>>>>>> postpone Full > >>>>>>>>>>>>> GC > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issues, but changing GC to G1GC gives noticeable > >>> result. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let's apply this optimization. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Dec 9, 2018 at 12:43 PM Vyacheslav Daradur < > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, Maxim, Nikolay, I have the following questions > >>>>>> regarding > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> inspections: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Should 'gnite_inspections_teamcity.xml' been > >>> imported > >>>> into > >>>>>>>> IDEA, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> since > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'ignite_inspections.xml' has been removed in actual > >>>>>> master? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, I've faced mismatching: if I use > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> '@SuppressWarnings("ErrorNotRethrown")' in code, > >>> then > >>>> this > >>>>>>>> will be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> marked on TC as "Redundant suppression". If I > >>> removed > >>>> this > >>>>>>>>>>>>> suppression > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in "main" code base (not in tests) then it's fine > >>> and > >>>> IDE > >>>>>>>> does not > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mark the code by inspection. But, if I use > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 'GridTestUtils#assertThrows' in 'tests' code base, > >>>> then > >>>>>> IDE > >>>>>>>> requires > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to suppress the inspection, if I have done it then > >>> TC > >>>>>> marks > >>>>>>>> this as > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Redundant suppression". > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What should I do in this case? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 10:26 PM Andrey Mashenkov > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <[hidden email]> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Have someone tried to investigate the issue > >>> related > >>>> to > >>>>>>>> Inspection > >>>>>>>>>>>>> TC > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> task > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> execution time variation (from 0.5 up to 1,5 > >>> hours)? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can we enable GC logs for this task or may be even > >>>> get > >>>>>>>> CPU, Disk, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Network > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> metrics? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can someone check if there are unnecessary Idea > >>>> plugins > >>>>>>>> starts that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> safely disabled? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 5:52 PM Dmitriy Pavlov < > >>>>>>>> [hidden email] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm totally with you in this decision, let's > >>> move > >>>> the > >>>>>>>> file. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 27 нояб. 2018 г. в 16:24, Maxim Muzafarov < > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> : > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I propose to make inspection configuration > >>>> default > >>>>>> on > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>> project > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> level. I've created a new issue [1] for it. It > >>>> can > >>>>>> be > >>>>>>>> easily > >>>>>>>>>>>>> done > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> recommend by IntelliJ documentation [2]. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Vyacheslav, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you share an example of your warnings? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Currently, we have different inspection > >>>>>>>> configurations: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - ignite_inspections.xml - to import > >>>> inspections as > >>>>>>>> default and > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> use > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> daily. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml - config to > >>>> run it > >>>>>>>> on TC. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Only > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fixed > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules in the project code are enabled. Each of > >>>> these > >>>>>>>> rules are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> marked > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with ERROR level. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] > >>>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-10422 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [2] > >>>>>>>> https://www.jetbrains.com/help/idea/code-inspection.html > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, 20 Nov 2018 at 13:58, Nikolay Izhikov > >>> < > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello, Vyacheslav. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, we have. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim Muzafarov, can you fix it, please? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> вт, 20 нояб. 2018 г., 13:10 Vyacheslav > >>> Daradur > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> : > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Guys, why we have 2 different inspection > >>>> files > >>>>>> in > >>>>>>>> the repo? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea\ignite_inspections.xml > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> idea\ignite_inspections_teamcity.xml > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> AFAIK TeamCity is able to use the same > >>>>>> inspection > >>>>>>>> file with > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IDE. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've imported > >>> 'idea\ignite_inspections.xml' > >>>> in > >>>>>>>> the IDE, but > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> now > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> see > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> inspection warnings for my PR on TC > >>> because > >>>> of > >>>>>>>> different > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> rules. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Nov 11, 2018 at 6:06 PM Maxim > >>>> Muzafarov > >>>>>> < > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yakov, Dmitry, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Which example of unsuccessful suite > >>>> execution > >>>>>>>> do we need? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Does the current fail [1] in the master > >>>> branch > >>>>>>>> enough to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> configure > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> notifications by TC.Bot? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please consider adding more checks > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - line endings. I think we should only > >>>> have > >>>>>> \n > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - ensure blank line at the end of file > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems to me that `line endings` is > >>>> easy to > >>>>>>>> add, but > >>>>>>>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> `blank > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> line at the end` we need as special > >>>> regexp. > >>>>>> Can > >>>>>>>> we focus > >>>>>>>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> built-in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IntelliJ inspections at first and fix > >>>> others > >>>>>>>> special > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> further? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [1] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 11 Nov 2018 at 17:55, Maxim > >>>> Muzafarov > >>>>>> < > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Igniters, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Since the inspection rules are > >>> included > >>>> in > >>>>>>>> RunAll a few > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> members > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> community mentioned a wide distributed > >>>>>>>> execution time > >>>>>>>>>>>>> on > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> TC > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> agents: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - 1h:27m:38s publicagent17_9094 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - 38m:04s publicagent17_9094 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - 33m:29s publicagent17_9094 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - 17m:13s publicagent17_9094 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It seems that we should configure the > >>>>>>>> resources > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> distribution > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> across TC > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> containers. Can anyone take a look at > >>>> it? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I've also prepared the short list of > >>>> rules > >>>>>> to > >>>>>>>> work on: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + Inconsistent line separators (6 > >>>> matches) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + Problematic whitespace (4 matches) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + expression.equals("literal")' rather > >>>> than > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> '"literal".equals(expression) (53 > >>>> matches) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + Unnecessary 'null' check before > >>>>>> 'instanceof' > >>>>>>>>>>>>> expression > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> call > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (42 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> matches) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + Redundant 'if' statement (69 > >>> matches) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + Redundant interface declaration (28 > >>>>>> matches) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + Double negation (0 matches) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + Unnecessary code block (472 matches) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> + Line is longer than allowed by code > >>>> style > >>>>>>>> (2614 > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> matches) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Is it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possible to implement?) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> WDYT? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 23:43, Dmitriy > >>>>>> Pavlov < > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email]> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Maxim, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thank you for your efforts to make > >>>> this > >>>>>>>> happen. Keep > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pace! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please provide an example > >>>> of how > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Inspections > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> fail, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I or > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another contributor could implement > >>>>>> support > >>>>>>>> of these > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failures > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> validation in > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the Tc Bot. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sincerely, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> пт, 26 окт. 2018 г. в 18:27, Yakov > >>>>>> Zhdanov < > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [hidden email] > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> : > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maxim, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for response, let's do it > >>>> the way > >>>>>>>> you > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> suggested. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please consider adding more checks > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - line endings. I think we should > >>>> only > >>>>>>>> have \n > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - ensure blank line in the end of > >>>> file > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All these are code reviews issues > >>> I > >>>>>>>> pointed out > >>>>>>>>>>>>> many > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reviewing > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conributions. It would be cool if > >>> we > >>>>>> have > >>>>>>>> TC build > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> failing if > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is any. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks! > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --Yakov > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey V. Mashenkov > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best Regards, Vyacheslav D. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey V. Mashenkov > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Andrey V. Mashenkov > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>> Best regards, > >>>>>>>>>>> Andrey V. Mashenkov > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>> Best regards, > >>>>>>>>> Andrey V. Mashenkov > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>> Best regards, > >>>>>>> Andrey V. Mashenkov > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> Best regards, > >>>>>> Andrey V. Mashenkov > >>>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Best regards, > >>> Andrey V. Mashenkov > >>> > > > |
|
Hi Maxim,
I believe that whatever style checks we establish at Teamcity, we better take care of making it easy for developers to find and fix violations in their typical dev environment (for Ignite this means, in IDEA). I think it is important that developers can maintain required style with minimal effort on their side. If above is doable then I am 200% for migrating our Teamcity inspections to checkstyle / maven. This is because I am very disappointed observing how it stays broken for so long. And worst of all, even when (if) it is fixed, I feel we will always be at risk that it breaks again and that we will have to again wait for months for it to be fixed. This is such a stark contrast with my experience regarding checkstyle based inspections. These just work and you just never fear that it is going to break for some obscure reason, this is so much better than what I observe now. One suggestion in case if we pick checkstyle - I recommend keeping its config file somewhere in the project under version control. I used to maintain such a shared style config at one of past jobs and after some experimenting it turned out most convenient to have it this way - so that developers could easily assess and discuss style settings and keep track of changes in these. (note how Kafka folks from your link [5] appear to be doing it this way) regards, Oleg Mmuzaf wrote > Igniters, > > I've found that some of the community members have faced with > `[Inspections] Core suite [1]` is not working well enough on TC. The > suite has a `FAILED` status for more than 2 months due to some issues > in TeamCity application [2]. Current suite behaviour confuses not only > new contributors but also other community members. Moreover, this > suite is no longer checks rules we previously configured. For > instance, in the master branch, I've found 11 `Unused imports` which > should have been caught earlier (e.g. for > {{IgniteCachePutAllRestartTest} [3]). > > I think we should make the next step to enable an automatic code style > checks. As an example, we can consider the Apache Kafka code style [5] > way and configure for the Ignite project a maven-checkstyle-plugin > with its own maven profile and run it simultaneously with other TC. We > can also enable the previously configured inspection rules, so no > coding style violations will be missed. > > I see some advantages of using a maven plugin: > - an IDE agnostic way for code checks > - can be used with different CI and build tools (Jenkins, TC) > - executable from the command line > - the entry single point to configure new rules > > I've created the ticket [4] and will prepare PR for it. > > WDYT? > > [1] > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv > [2] https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/TW-58504 > [3]https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/core/src/test/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/processors/cache/IgniteCachePutAllRestartTest.java#L29 > [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11277 > [5] https://github.com/apache/kafka/tree/trunk/checkstyle > > On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 16:03, Petr Ivanov < > mr.weider@ > > wrote: >> >> It seems there is bug in latest 2018.2 TeamCity >> Bug is filed [1] >> >> >> [1] https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/TW-58504 >> >> > On 19 Dec 2018, at 11:31, Petr Ivanov < > mr.weider@ > > wrote: >> > >> > Investigating problem, stand by. >> > >> > >> >> On 18 Dec 2018, at 19:41, Dmitriy Pavlov < > dpavlov@ > > wrote: >> >> >> >> Both patches were applied. Maxim, thank you! >> >> >> >> What about 1. An `Unexpected error during build messages processing in >> >> TeamCity`, what can we do as the next step to fix it? >> >> >> >> Sincerely, >> >> Dmitriy Pavlov >> >>[cut] >> > >> -- Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/ |
|
|
Hi,
I also think that some warning from IDEA that some code style rule is violated is a must-have. вс, 10 февр. 2019 г. в 01:58, oignatenko <[hidden email]>: > > Hi Maxim, > > I believe that whatever style checks we establish at Teamcity, we better > take care of making it easy for developers to find and fix violations in > their typical dev environment (for Ignite this means, in IDEA). I think it > is important that developers can maintain required style with minimal effort > on their side. > > If above is doable then I am 200% for migrating our Teamcity inspections to > checkstyle / maven. > > This is because I am very disappointed observing how it stays broken for so > long. And worst of all, even when (if) it is fixed, I feel we will always be > at risk that it breaks again and that we will have to again wait for months > for it to be fixed. > > This is such a stark contrast with my experience regarding checkstyle based > inspections. These just work and you just never fear that it is going to > break for some obscure reason, this is so much better than what I observe > now. > > One suggestion in case if we pick checkstyle - I recommend keeping its > config file somewhere in the project under version control. I used to > maintain such a shared style config at one of past jobs and after some > experimenting it turned out most convenient to have it this way - so that > developers could easily assess and discuss style settings and keep track of > changes in these. (note how Kafka folks from your link [5] appear to be > doing it this way) > > regards, Oleg > > > Mmuzaf wrote > > Igniters, > > > > I've found that some of the community members have faced with > > `[Inspections] Core suite [1]` is not working well enough on TC. The > > suite has a `FAILED` status for more than 2 months due to some issues > > in TeamCity application [2]. Current suite behaviour confuses not only > > new contributors but also other community members. Moreover, this > > suite is no longer checks rules we previously configured. For > > instance, in the master branch, I've found 11 `Unused imports` which > > should have been caught earlier (e.g. for > > {{IgniteCachePutAllRestartTest} [3]). > > > > I think we should make the next step to enable an automatic code style > > checks. As an example, we can consider the Apache Kafka code style [5] > > way and configure for the Ignite project a maven-checkstyle-plugin > > with its own maven profile and run it simultaneously with other TC. We > > can also enable the previously configured inspection rules, so no > > coding style violations will be missed. > > > > I see some advantages of using a maven plugin: > > - an IDE agnostic way for code checks > > - can be used with different CI and build tools (Jenkins, TC) > > - executable from the command line > > - the entry single point to configure new rules > > > > I've created the ticket [4] and will prepare PR for it. > > > > WDYT? > > > > [1] > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv > > [2] https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/TW-58504 > > [3]https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/core/src/test/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/processors/cache/IgniteCachePutAllRestartTest.java#L29 > > [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11277 > > [5] https://github.com/apache/kafka/tree/trunk/checkstyle > > > > On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 16:03, Petr Ivanov < > > > mr.weider@ > > > > wrote: > >> > >> It seems there is bug in latest 2018.2 TeamCity > >> Bug is filed [1] > >> > >> > >> [1] https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/TW-58504 > >> > >> > On 19 Dec 2018, at 11:31, Petr Ivanov < > > > mr.weider@ > > > > wrote: > >> > > >> > Investigating problem, stand by. > >> > > >> > > >> >> On 18 Dec 2018, at 19:41, Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > dpavlov@ > > > > wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Both patches were applied. Maxim, thank you! > >> >> > >> >> What about 1. An `Unexpected error during build messages processing in > >> >> TeamCity`, what can we do as the next step to fix it? > >> >> > >> >> Sincerely, > >> >> Dmitriy Pavlov > >> >>[cut] > >> > > >> > > > > > > -- > Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/ -- Best regards, Ivan Pavlukhin |
|
|
Hello, Maxim.
+1 from me for migrating to checkstyle. Oleg, there is plugin for IDEA with 2mln downloads - https://plugins.jetbrains.com/plugin/1065-checkstyle-idea I propose do the following: 1. Migrate current checks to checkstyle. 2. Apply checks to all Ignite modules. Currently, only core module are checked. I will review and commit this patch, or do it by my own. 3. Include code style checks to "Build Apache Ignite" suite. Ignite has to fail to build if patch violates codestyle. вс, 10 февр. 2019 г. в 07:54, Павлухин Иван <[hidden email]>: > Hi, > > I also think that some warning from IDEA that some code style rule is > violated is a must-have. > > вс, 10 февр. 2019 г. в 01:58, oignatenko <[hidden email]>: > > > > Hi Maxim, > > > > I believe that whatever style checks we establish at Teamcity, we better > > take care of making it easy for developers to find and fix violations in > > their typical dev environment (for Ignite this means, in IDEA). I think > it > > is important that developers can maintain required style with minimal > effort > > on their side. > > > > If above is doable then I am 200% for migrating our Teamcity inspections > to > > checkstyle / maven. > > > > This is because I am very disappointed observing how it stays broken for > so > > long. And worst of all, even when (if) it is fixed, I feel we will > always be > > at risk that it breaks again and that we will have to again wait for > months > > for it to be fixed. > > > > This is such a stark contrast with my experience regarding checkstyle > based > > inspections. These just work and you just never fear that it is going to > > break for some obscure reason, this is so much better than what I observe > > now. > > > > One suggestion in case if we pick checkstyle - I recommend keeping its > > config file somewhere in the project under version control. I used to > > maintain such a shared style config at one of past jobs and after some > > experimenting it turned out most convenient to have it this way - so that > > developers could easily assess and discuss style settings and keep track > of > > changes in these. (note how Kafka folks from your link [5] appear to be > > doing it this way) > > > > regards, Oleg > > > > > > Mmuzaf wrote > > > Igniters, > > > > > > I've found that some of the community members have faced with > > > `[Inspections] Core suite [1]` is not working well enough on TC. The > > > suite has a `FAILED` status for more than 2 months due to some issues > > > in TeamCity application [2]. Current suite behaviour confuses not only > > > new contributors but also other community members. Moreover, this > > > suite is no longer checks rules we previously configured. For > > > instance, in the master branch, I've found 11 `Unused imports` which > > > should have been caught earlier (e.g. for > > > {{IgniteCachePutAllRestartTest} [3]). > > > > > > I think we should make the next step to enable an automatic code style > > > checks. As an example, we can consider the Apache Kafka code style [5] > > > way and configure for the Ignite project a maven-checkstyle-plugin > > > with its own maven profile and run it simultaneously with other TC. We > > > can also enable the previously configured inspection rules, so no > > > coding style violations will be missed. > > > > > > I see some advantages of using a maven plugin: > > > - an IDE agnostic way for code checks > > > - can be used with different CI and build tools (Jenkins, TC) > > > - executable from the command line > > > - the entry single point to configure new rules > > > > > > I've created the ticket [4] and will prepare PR for it. > > > > > > WDYT? > > > > > > [1] > > > > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv > > > [2] https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/TW-58504 > > > [3] > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/core/src/test/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/processors/cache/IgniteCachePutAllRestartTest.java#L29 > > > [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11277 > > > [5] https://github.com/apache/kafka/tree/trunk/checkstyle > > > > > > On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 16:03, Petr Ivanov < > > > > > mr.weider@ > > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > >> It seems there is bug in latest 2018.2 TeamCity > > >> Bug is filed [1] > > >> > > >> > > >> [1] https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/TW-58504 > > >> > > >> > On 19 Dec 2018, at 11:31, Petr Ivanov < > > > > > mr.weider@ > > > > > > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > Investigating problem, stand by. > > >> > > > >> > > > >> >> On 18 Dec 2018, at 19:41, Dmitriy Pavlov < > > > > > dpavlov@ > > > > > > wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> Both patches were applied. Maxim, thank you! > > >> >> > > >> >> What about 1. An `Unexpected error during build messages > processing in > > >> >> TeamCity`, what can we do as the next step to fix it? > > >> >> > > >> >> Sincerely, > > >> >> Dmitriy Pavlov > > >> >>[cut] > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/ > > > > -- > Best regards, > Ivan Pavlukhin > |
|
|
Is build configuration Inspections [Core] meant to transform into single all-modules check build configuration (without module subdivision)?
> On 11 Feb 2019, at 11:02, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]> wrote: > > Hello, Maxim. > > +1 from me for migrating to checkstyle. > > Oleg, there is plugin for IDEA with 2mln downloads - > https://plugins.jetbrains.com/plugin/1065-checkstyle-idea > > I propose do the following: > > 1. Migrate current checks to checkstyle. > 2. Apply checks to all Ignite modules. Currently, only core module are > checked. > I will review and commit this patch, or do it by my own. > > 3. Include code style checks to "Build Apache Ignite" suite. Ignite has to > fail to build if patch violates codestyle. > > вс, 10 февр. 2019 г. в 07:54, Павлухин Иван <[hidden email]>: > >> Hi, >> >> I also think that some warning from IDEA that some code style rule is >> violated is a must-have. >> >> вс, 10 февр. 2019 г. в 01:58, oignatenko <[hidden email]>: >>> >>> Hi Maxim, >>> >>> I believe that whatever style checks we establish at Teamcity, we better >>> take care of making it easy for developers to find and fix violations in >>> their typical dev environment (for Ignite this means, in IDEA). I think >> it >>> is important that developers can maintain required style with minimal >> effort >>> on their side. >>> >>> If above is doable then I am 200% for migrating our Teamcity inspections >> to >>> checkstyle / maven. >>> >>> This is because I am very disappointed observing how it stays broken for >> so >>> long. And worst of all, even when (if) it is fixed, I feel we will >> always be >>> at risk that it breaks again and that we will have to again wait for >> months >>> for it to be fixed. >>> >>> This is such a stark contrast with my experience regarding checkstyle >> based >>> inspections. These just work and you just never fear that it is going to >>> break for some obscure reason, this is so much better than what I observe >>> now. >>> >>> One suggestion in case if we pick checkstyle - I recommend keeping its >>> config file somewhere in the project under version control. I used to >>> maintain such a shared style config at one of past jobs and after some >>> experimenting it turned out most convenient to have it this way - so that >>> developers could easily assess and discuss style settings and keep track >> of >>> changes in these. (note how Kafka folks from your link [5] appear to be >>> doing it this way) >>> >>> regards, Oleg >>> >>> >>> Mmuzaf wrote >>>> Igniters, >>>> >>>> I've found that some of the community members have faced with >>>> `[Inspections] Core suite [1]` is not working well enough on TC. The >>>> suite has a `FAILED` status for more than 2 months due to some issues >>>> in TeamCity application [2]. Current suite behaviour confuses not only >>>> new contributors but also other community members. Moreover, this >>>> suite is no longer checks rules we previously configured. For >>>> instance, in the master branch, I've found 11 `Unused imports` which >>>> should have been caught earlier (e.g. for >>>> {{IgniteCachePutAllRestartTest} [3]). >>>> >>>> I think we should make the next step to enable an automatic code style >>>> checks. As an example, we can consider the Apache Kafka code style [5] >>>> way and configure for the Ignite project a maven-checkstyle-plugin >>>> with its own maven profile and run it simultaneously with other TC. We >>>> can also enable the previously configured inspection rules, so no >>>> coding style violations will be missed. >>>> >>>> I see some advantages of using a maven plugin: >>>> - an IDE agnostic way for code checks >>>> - can be used with different CI and build tools (Jenkins, TC) >>>> - executable from the command line >>>> - the entry single point to configure new rules >>>> >>>> I've created the ticket [4] and will prepare PR for it. >>>> >>>> WDYT? >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> >> https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv >>>> [2] https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/TW-58504 >>>> [3] >> https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/core/src/test/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/processors/cache/IgniteCachePutAllRestartTest.java#L29 >>>> [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11277 >>>> [5] https://github.com/apache/kafka/tree/trunk/checkstyle >>>> >>>> On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 16:03, Petr Ivanov < >>> >>>> mr.weider@ >>> >>>> > wrote: >>>>> >>>>> It seems there is bug in latest 2018.2 TeamCity >>>>> Bug is filed [1] >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> [1] https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/TW-58504 >>>>> >>>>>> On 19 Dec 2018, at 11:31, Petr Ivanov < >>> >>>> mr.weider@ >>> >>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Investigating problem, stand by. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 18 Dec 2018, at 19:41, Dmitriy Pavlov < >>> >>>> dpavlov@ >>> >>>> > wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Both patches were applied. Maxim, thank you! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What about 1. An `Unexpected error during build messages >> processing in >>>>>>> TeamCity`, what can we do as the next step to fix it? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sincerely, >>>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov >>>>>>> [cut] >>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/ >> >> >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Ivan Pavlukhin >> |
|
|
Hello, Petr.
Are you saying that we have not single build task? And each module builds when it required? If yes, then I propose to create a task like "Licence check" which will be run for every patch. My point is that violation of codestyle should be treated as hard as compile error. пн, 11 февр. 2019 г., 11:16 Petr Ivanov [hidden email]: > Is build configuration Inspections [Core] meant to transform into single > all-modules check build configuration (without module subdivision)? > > > > On 11 Feb 2019, at 11:02, Nikolay Izhikov <[hidden email]> wrote: > > > > Hello, Maxim. > > > > +1 from me for migrating to checkstyle. > > > > Oleg, there is plugin for IDEA with 2mln downloads - > > https://plugins.jetbrains.com/plugin/1065-checkstyle-idea > > > > I propose do the following: > > > > 1. Migrate current checks to checkstyle. > > 2. Apply checks to all Ignite modules. Currently, only core module are > > checked. > > I will review and commit this patch, or do it by my own. > > > > 3. Include code style checks to "Build Apache Ignite" suite. Ignite has > to > > fail to build if patch violates codestyle. > > > > вс, 10 февр. 2019 г. в 07:54, Павлухин Иван <[hidden email]>: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> I also think that some warning from IDEA that some code style rule is > >> violated is a must-have. > >> > >> вс, 10 февр. 2019 г. в 01:58, oignatenko <[hidden email]>: > >>> > >>> Hi Maxim, > >>> > >>> I believe that whatever style checks we establish at Teamcity, we > better > >>> take care of making it easy for developers to find and fix violations > in > >>> their typical dev environment (for Ignite this means, in IDEA). I think > >> it > >>> is important that developers can maintain required style with minimal > >> effort > >>> on their side. > >>> > >>> If above is doable then I am 200% for migrating our Teamcity > inspections > >> to > >>> checkstyle / maven. > >>> > >>> This is because I am very disappointed observing how it stays broken > for > >> so > >>> long. And worst of all, even when (if) it is fixed, I feel we will > >> always be > >>> at risk that it breaks again and that we will have to again wait for > >> months > >>> for it to be fixed. > >>> > >>> This is such a stark contrast with my experience regarding checkstyle > >> based > >>> inspections. These just work and you just never fear that it is going > to > >>> break for some obscure reason, this is so much better than what I > observe > >>> now. > >>> > >>> One suggestion in case if we pick checkstyle - I recommend keeping its > >>> config file somewhere in the project under version control. I used to > >>> maintain such a shared style config at one of past jobs and after some > >>> experimenting it turned out most convenient to have it this way - so > that > >>> developers could easily assess and discuss style settings and keep > track > >> of > >>> changes in these. (note how Kafka folks from your link [5] appear to be > >>> doing it this way) > >>> > >>> regards, Oleg > >>> > >>> > >>> Mmuzaf wrote > >>>> Igniters, > >>>> > >>>> I've found that some of the community members have faced with > >>>> `[Inspections] Core suite [1]` is not working well enough on TC. The > >>>> suite has a `FAILED` status for more than 2 months due to some issues > >>>> in TeamCity application [2]. Current suite behaviour confuses not only > >>>> new contributors but also other community members. Moreover, this > >>>> suite is no longer checks rules we previously configured. For > >>>> instance, in the master branch, I've found 11 `Unused imports` which > >>>> should have been caught earlier (e.g. for > >>>> {{IgniteCachePutAllRestartTest} [3]). > >>>> > >>>> I think we should make the next step to enable an automatic code style > >>>> checks. As an example, we can consider the Apache Kafka code style [5] > >>>> way and configure for the Ignite project a maven-checkstyle-plugin > >>>> with its own maven profile and run it simultaneously with other TC. We > >>>> can also enable the previously configured inspection rules, so no > >>>> coding style violations will be missed. > >>>> > >>>> I see some advantages of using a maven plugin: > >>>> - an IDE agnostic way for code checks > >>>> - can be used with different CI and build tools (Jenkins, TC) > >>>> - executable from the command line > >>>> - the entry single point to configure new rules > >>>> > >>>> I've created the ticket [4] and will prepare PR for it. > >>>> > >>>> WDYT? > >>>> > >>>> [1] > >>>> > >> > https://ci.ignite.apache.org/viewType.html?buildTypeId=IgniteTests24Java8_InspectionsCore&branch_IgniteTests24Java8=%3Cdefault%3E&tab=buildTypeStatusDiv > >>>> [2] https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/TW-58504 > >>>> [3] > >> > https://github.com/apache/ignite/blob/master/modules/core/src/test/java/org/apache/ignite/internal/processors/cache/IgniteCachePutAllRestartTest.java#L29 > >>>> [4] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/IGNITE-11277 > >>>> [5] https://github.com/apache/kafka/tree/trunk/checkstyle > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, 21 Dec 2018 at 16:03, Petr Ivanov < > >>> > >>>> mr.weider@ > >>> > >>>> > wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> It seems there is bug in latest 2018.2 TeamCity > >>>>> Bug is filed [1] > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> [1] https://youtrack.jetbrains.com/issue/TW-58504 > >>>>> > >>>>>> On 19 Dec 2018, at 11:31, Petr Ivanov < > >>> > >>>> mr.weider@ > >>> > >>>> > wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Investigating problem, stand by. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 18 Dec 2018, at 19:41, Dmitriy Pavlov < > >>> > >>>> dpavlov@ > >>> > >>>> > wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Both patches were applied. Maxim, thank you! > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> What about 1. An `Unexpected error during build messages > >> processing in > >>>>>>> TeamCity`, what can we do as the next step to fix it? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Sincerely, > >>>>>>> Dmitriy Pavlov > >>>>>>> [cut] > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Sent from: http://apache-ignite-developers.2346864.n4.nabble.com/ > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Best regards, > >> Ivan Pavlukhin > >> > > |
«
Return to Apache Ignite Developers - Legacy Mail Archive
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |